User login
COVID-19 spurs telemedicine, furloughs, retirement
The broad use of telemedicine has been a bright spot in the COVID-19 response, but the pandemic is also creating significant disruption as some physicians are furloughed and others consider practice changes.
A recent survey of physicians conducted by Merritt Hawkins and The Physicians Foundation examined how physicians are being affected by and responding to the pandemic. The findings are based on completed surveys from 842 physicians. About one-third of respondents are primary care physicians, while two-thirds are surgical, medical, and diagnostic specialists and subspecialists.
The survey shines a light on the rapid adoption of telemedicine, with 48% of physicians respondents reporting that they are now treating patients through telemedicine.
“I think that is purely explainable on the situation that COVID has led to with the desire to see patients remotely, still take care of them, and the fact that at the federal level this was recognized and doctors are being compensated for seeing patients remotely,” Gary Price, MD, a plastic surgeon and president of The Physicians Foundation, said in an interview.
“The Foundation does a study of the nation’s physicians every other year and in 2018, when we asked the same question, only 18% of physicians were using some form of telemedicine,” he added.
And Dr. Price said he thinks the shift to telemedicine is here to stay.
“I think that will be a lasting effect of the pandemic,” he said. “More physicians and more patients will be using telemedicine approaches, I think, from here on out. We will see a shift that persists. I think that’s a good thing. Physicians like it. Patients like it. It won’t replace all in-person visits, certainly, but there are a number of health care visits that could be taken care of quite well with a virtual visit and it saves the patients travel time, time away from work, and I think it can make the physicians’ practice more efficient as well.”
The key to sustainability, he said, will be that private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services continue to pay for it.
“I think we will have had a good demonstration, not only that it can work, but that it does work and that it can be accomplished without any diminishment in the quality of care that’s delivered,” he said.
But the recent survey also identified a number of employment issues that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 18% of respondents who were treating COVID-19 patients and 30% of those not treating COVID-19 patients reported that they had been furloughed or experienced a pay cut. Among respondents, just 38.5% reported that they are seeing COVID-19 patients.
“It is unprecedented to my knowledge in the physician employment sphere,” Dr. Price said. “That was the most surprising thing to me. I think you might be able to explain that by the increasing number of physicians who are employees now of larger health systems and the fact that a big portion of those health systems too, in normal times, involves care that right now no one is able to get to or even wants to be seen for because of the risk, of course, of COVID-19.”
The survey also revealed that some respondents had or were planning a change in practice because of COVID-19: 14% said they had or would seek a different practice, 6% reported they had or would find a job without patient care, 7% said they had or would close their practice temporarily, 5% reported that they had or would retire, and 4% said they had or would leave private practice and seek employment at a hospital.
“The survey represents how they are feeling at the time and it doesn’t mean they will necessarily do that, but if even a portion of doctors did that all at once, we would really aggravate an access problem and what we know is a worsening physician shortage in the country,” he said. “So we are very concerned about that.”
Dr. Price also predicted there would be increased consolidation within the health care system as more smaller, independent practices feel the financial stress of the pandemic.
“I hope that I am wrong about that,” he said. “I think smaller practices offer a very cost-effective solution for high-quality care, and their competition in the marketplace for health care is a good and healthy thing.”
The broad use of telemedicine has been a bright spot in the COVID-19 response, but the pandemic is also creating significant disruption as some physicians are furloughed and others consider practice changes.
A recent survey of physicians conducted by Merritt Hawkins and The Physicians Foundation examined how physicians are being affected by and responding to the pandemic. The findings are based on completed surveys from 842 physicians. About one-third of respondents are primary care physicians, while two-thirds are surgical, medical, and diagnostic specialists and subspecialists.
The survey shines a light on the rapid adoption of telemedicine, with 48% of physicians respondents reporting that they are now treating patients through telemedicine.
“I think that is purely explainable on the situation that COVID has led to with the desire to see patients remotely, still take care of them, and the fact that at the federal level this was recognized and doctors are being compensated for seeing patients remotely,” Gary Price, MD, a plastic surgeon and president of The Physicians Foundation, said in an interview.
“The Foundation does a study of the nation’s physicians every other year and in 2018, when we asked the same question, only 18% of physicians were using some form of telemedicine,” he added.
And Dr. Price said he thinks the shift to telemedicine is here to stay.
“I think that will be a lasting effect of the pandemic,” he said. “More physicians and more patients will be using telemedicine approaches, I think, from here on out. We will see a shift that persists. I think that’s a good thing. Physicians like it. Patients like it. It won’t replace all in-person visits, certainly, but there are a number of health care visits that could be taken care of quite well with a virtual visit and it saves the patients travel time, time away from work, and I think it can make the physicians’ practice more efficient as well.”
The key to sustainability, he said, will be that private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services continue to pay for it.
“I think we will have had a good demonstration, not only that it can work, but that it does work and that it can be accomplished without any diminishment in the quality of care that’s delivered,” he said.
But the recent survey also identified a number of employment issues that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 18% of respondents who were treating COVID-19 patients and 30% of those not treating COVID-19 patients reported that they had been furloughed or experienced a pay cut. Among respondents, just 38.5% reported that they are seeing COVID-19 patients.
“It is unprecedented to my knowledge in the physician employment sphere,” Dr. Price said. “That was the most surprising thing to me. I think you might be able to explain that by the increasing number of physicians who are employees now of larger health systems and the fact that a big portion of those health systems too, in normal times, involves care that right now no one is able to get to or even wants to be seen for because of the risk, of course, of COVID-19.”
The survey also revealed that some respondents had or were planning a change in practice because of COVID-19: 14% said they had or would seek a different practice, 6% reported they had or would find a job without patient care, 7% said they had or would close their practice temporarily, 5% reported that they had or would retire, and 4% said they had or would leave private practice and seek employment at a hospital.
“The survey represents how they are feeling at the time and it doesn’t mean they will necessarily do that, but if even a portion of doctors did that all at once, we would really aggravate an access problem and what we know is a worsening physician shortage in the country,” he said. “So we are very concerned about that.”
Dr. Price also predicted there would be increased consolidation within the health care system as more smaller, independent practices feel the financial stress of the pandemic.
“I hope that I am wrong about that,” he said. “I think smaller practices offer a very cost-effective solution for high-quality care, and their competition in the marketplace for health care is a good and healthy thing.”
The broad use of telemedicine has been a bright spot in the COVID-19 response, but the pandemic is also creating significant disruption as some physicians are furloughed and others consider practice changes.
A recent survey of physicians conducted by Merritt Hawkins and The Physicians Foundation examined how physicians are being affected by and responding to the pandemic. The findings are based on completed surveys from 842 physicians. About one-third of respondents are primary care physicians, while two-thirds are surgical, medical, and diagnostic specialists and subspecialists.
The survey shines a light on the rapid adoption of telemedicine, with 48% of physicians respondents reporting that they are now treating patients through telemedicine.
“I think that is purely explainable on the situation that COVID has led to with the desire to see patients remotely, still take care of them, and the fact that at the federal level this was recognized and doctors are being compensated for seeing patients remotely,” Gary Price, MD, a plastic surgeon and president of The Physicians Foundation, said in an interview.
“The Foundation does a study of the nation’s physicians every other year and in 2018, when we asked the same question, only 18% of physicians were using some form of telemedicine,” he added.
And Dr. Price said he thinks the shift to telemedicine is here to stay.
“I think that will be a lasting effect of the pandemic,” he said. “More physicians and more patients will be using telemedicine approaches, I think, from here on out. We will see a shift that persists. I think that’s a good thing. Physicians like it. Patients like it. It won’t replace all in-person visits, certainly, but there are a number of health care visits that could be taken care of quite well with a virtual visit and it saves the patients travel time, time away from work, and I think it can make the physicians’ practice more efficient as well.”
The key to sustainability, he said, will be that private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services continue to pay for it.
“I think we will have had a good demonstration, not only that it can work, but that it does work and that it can be accomplished without any diminishment in the quality of care that’s delivered,” he said.
But the recent survey also identified a number of employment issues that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 18% of respondents who were treating COVID-19 patients and 30% of those not treating COVID-19 patients reported that they had been furloughed or experienced a pay cut. Among respondents, just 38.5% reported that they are seeing COVID-19 patients.
“It is unprecedented to my knowledge in the physician employment sphere,” Dr. Price said. “That was the most surprising thing to me. I think you might be able to explain that by the increasing number of physicians who are employees now of larger health systems and the fact that a big portion of those health systems too, in normal times, involves care that right now no one is able to get to or even wants to be seen for because of the risk, of course, of COVID-19.”
The survey also revealed that some respondents had or were planning a change in practice because of COVID-19: 14% said they had or would seek a different practice, 6% reported they had or would find a job without patient care, 7% said they had or would close their practice temporarily, 5% reported that they had or would retire, and 4% said they had or would leave private practice and seek employment at a hospital.
“The survey represents how they are feeling at the time and it doesn’t mean they will necessarily do that, but if even a portion of doctors did that all at once, we would really aggravate an access problem and what we know is a worsening physician shortage in the country,” he said. “So we are very concerned about that.”
Dr. Price also predicted there would be increased consolidation within the health care system as more smaller, independent practices feel the financial stress of the pandemic.
“I hope that I am wrong about that,” he said. “I think smaller practices offer a very cost-effective solution for high-quality care, and their competition in the marketplace for health care is a good and healthy thing.”
Will COVID-19 finally trigger action on health disparities?
Because of stark racial disparities in COVID-19 infection and mortality, the pandemic is being called a “sentinel” and “bellwether” event that should push the United States to finally come to grips with disparities in health care.
When it comes to COVID-19, the pattern is “irrefutable”: Blacks in the United States are being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and are dying of COVID-19 at higher rates than whites, Clyde W. Yancy, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, wrote in a viewpoint article published online April 15 in JAMA.
According to one recent survey, he noted, the infection rate is threefold higher and the death rate is sixfold higher in predominantly black counties in the United States relative to predominantly white counties.
A sixfold increase in the rate of death for blacks due to a now ubiquitous virus should be deemed “unconscionable” and a moment of “ethical reckoning,” Dr. Yancy wrote.
“Why is this uniquely important to me? I am an academic cardiologist; I study health care disparities; and I am a black man,” he wrote.
The COVID-19 pandemic may be the “bellwether” event that the United States has needed to fully address disparities in health care, Dr. Yancy said.
“Public health is complicated and social reengineering is complex, but change of this magnitude does not happen without a new resolve,” he concluded. “The U.S. has needed a trigger to fully address health care disparities; COVID-19 may be that bellwether event. Certainly, within the broad and powerful economic and legislative engines of the U.S., there is room to definitively address a scourge even worse than COVID-19: health care disparities. It only takes will. It is time to end the refrain.”
The question is, he asks, will the nation finally “think differently, and, as has been done in response to other major diseases, declare that a civil society will no longer accept disproportionate suffering?”
Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, doesn’t think so.
In a related editorial published online April 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, he points out that the 1985 Heckler Report, from the Department of Health and Human Services, documented higher racial/ethnic mortality rates and the need to correct them. This was followed in 2002 by a report from the Institute of Medicine called Unequal Treatment that also underscored health disparities.
Despite some progress, the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating racial/ethnic disparities has not been realized, Dr. Ferdinand said. “I think baked into the consciousness of the American psyche is that there are some people who have and some who have not,” he said in an interview.
“To some extent, some societies at some point become immune. We would not like to think that America, with its sense of egalitarianism, would get to that point, but maybe we have,” said Dr. Ferdinand.
A ‘sentinel event’
He points out that black people are not genetically or biologically predisposed to COVID-19 but are socially prone to coronavirus exposure and are more likely to have comorbid conditions, such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease, that fuel complications.
The “tragic” higher COVID-19 mortality among African Americans and other racial/ethnic minorities confirms “inadequate” efforts on the part of society to eliminate disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and is a “sentinel event,” Dr. Ferdinand wrote.
A sentinel event, as defined by the Joint Commission, is an unexpected occurrence that leads to death or serious physical or psychological injury or the risk thereof, he explained.
“Conventionally identified sentinel events, such as unintended retention of foreign objects and fall-related events, are used to evaluate quality in hospital care. Similarly, disparate [African American] COVID-19 mortality reflects long-standing, unacceptable U.S. racial/ethnic and socioeconomic CVD inequities and unmasks system failures and unacceptable care to be caught and mitigated,” Dr. Ferdinand concluded.
Dr. Yancy and Dr. Ferdinand have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Because of stark racial disparities in COVID-19 infection and mortality, the pandemic is being called a “sentinel” and “bellwether” event that should push the United States to finally come to grips with disparities in health care.
When it comes to COVID-19, the pattern is “irrefutable”: Blacks in the United States are being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and are dying of COVID-19 at higher rates than whites, Clyde W. Yancy, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, wrote in a viewpoint article published online April 15 in JAMA.
According to one recent survey, he noted, the infection rate is threefold higher and the death rate is sixfold higher in predominantly black counties in the United States relative to predominantly white counties.
A sixfold increase in the rate of death for blacks due to a now ubiquitous virus should be deemed “unconscionable” and a moment of “ethical reckoning,” Dr. Yancy wrote.
“Why is this uniquely important to me? I am an academic cardiologist; I study health care disparities; and I am a black man,” he wrote.
The COVID-19 pandemic may be the “bellwether” event that the United States has needed to fully address disparities in health care, Dr. Yancy said.
“Public health is complicated and social reengineering is complex, but change of this magnitude does not happen without a new resolve,” he concluded. “The U.S. has needed a trigger to fully address health care disparities; COVID-19 may be that bellwether event. Certainly, within the broad and powerful economic and legislative engines of the U.S., there is room to definitively address a scourge even worse than COVID-19: health care disparities. It only takes will. It is time to end the refrain.”
The question is, he asks, will the nation finally “think differently, and, as has been done in response to other major diseases, declare that a civil society will no longer accept disproportionate suffering?”
Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, doesn’t think so.
In a related editorial published online April 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, he points out that the 1985 Heckler Report, from the Department of Health and Human Services, documented higher racial/ethnic mortality rates and the need to correct them. This was followed in 2002 by a report from the Institute of Medicine called Unequal Treatment that also underscored health disparities.
Despite some progress, the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating racial/ethnic disparities has not been realized, Dr. Ferdinand said. “I think baked into the consciousness of the American psyche is that there are some people who have and some who have not,” he said in an interview.
“To some extent, some societies at some point become immune. We would not like to think that America, with its sense of egalitarianism, would get to that point, but maybe we have,” said Dr. Ferdinand.
A ‘sentinel event’
He points out that black people are not genetically or biologically predisposed to COVID-19 but are socially prone to coronavirus exposure and are more likely to have comorbid conditions, such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease, that fuel complications.
The “tragic” higher COVID-19 mortality among African Americans and other racial/ethnic minorities confirms “inadequate” efforts on the part of society to eliminate disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and is a “sentinel event,” Dr. Ferdinand wrote.
A sentinel event, as defined by the Joint Commission, is an unexpected occurrence that leads to death or serious physical or psychological injury or the risk thereof, he explained.
“Conventionally identified sentinel events, such as unintended retention of foreign objects and fall-related events, are used to evaluate quality in hospital care. Similarly, disparate [African American] COVID-19 mortality reflects long-standing, unacceptable U.S. racial/ethnic and socioeconomic CVD inequities and unmasks system failures and unacceptable care to be caught and mitigated,” Dr. Ferdinand concluded.
Dr. Yancy and Dr. Ferdinand have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Because of stark racial disparities in COVID-19 infection and mortality, the pandemic is being called a “sentinel” and “bellwether” event that should push the United States to finally come to grips with disparities in health care.
When it comes to COVID-19, the pattern is “irrefutable”: Blacks in the United States are being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and are dying of COVID-19 at higher rates than whites, Clyde W. Yancy, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, wrote in a viewpoint article published online April 15 in JAMA.
According to one recent survey, he noted, the infection rate is threefold higher and the death rate is sixfold higher in predominantly black counties in the United States relative to predominantly white counties.
A sixfold increase in the rate of death for blacks due to a now ubiquitous virus should be deemed “unconscionable” and a moment of “ethical reckoning,” Dr. Yancy wrote.
“Why is this uniquely important to me? I am an academic cardiologist; I study health care disparities; and I am a black man,” he wrote.
The COVID-19 pandemic may be the “bellwether” event that the United States has needed to fully address disparities in health care, Dr. Yancy said.
“Public health is complicated and social reengineering is complex, but change of this magnitude does not happen without a new resolve,” he concluded. “The U.S. has needed a trigger to fully address health care disparities; COVID-19 may be that bellwether event. Certainly, within the broad and powerful economic and legislative engines of the U.S., there is room to definitively address a scourge even worse than COVID-19: health care disparities. It only takes will. It is time to end the refrain.”
The question is, he asks, will the nation finally “think differently, and, as has been done in response to other major diseases, declare that a civil society will no longer accept disproportionate suffering?”
Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, doesn’t think so.
In a related editorial published online April 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, he points out that the 1985 Heckler Report, from the Department of Health and Human Services, documented higher racial/ethnic mortality rates and the need to correct them. This was followed in 2002 by a report from the Institute of Medicine called Unequal Treatment that also underscored health disparities.
Despite some progress, the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating racial/ethnic disparities has not been realized, Dr. Ferdinand said. “I think baked into the consciousness of the American psyche is that there are some people who have and some who have not,” he said in an interview.
“To some extent, some societies at some point become immune. We would not like to think that America, with its sense of egalitarianism, would get to that point, but maybe we have,” said Dr. Ferdinand.
A ‘sentinel event’
He points out that black people are not genetically or biologically predisposed to COVID-19 but are socially prone to coronavirus exposure and are more likely to have comorbid conditions, such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease, that fuel complications.
The “tragic” higher COVID-19 mortality among African Americans and other racial/ethnic minorities confirms “inadequate” efforts on the part of society to eliminate disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and is a “sentinel event,” Dr. Ferdinand wrote.
A sentinel event, as defined by the Joint Commission, is an unexpected occurrence that leads to death or serious physical or psychological injury or the risk thereof, he explained.
“Conventionally identified sentinel events, such as unintended retention of foreign objects and fall-related events, are used to evaluate quality in hospital care. Similarly, disparate [African American] COVID-19 mortality reflects long-standing, unacceptable U.S. racial/ethnic and socioeconomic CVD inequities and unmasks system failures and unacceptable care to be caught and mitigated,” Dr. Ferdinand concluded.
Dr. Yancy and Dr. Ferdinand have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New advocacy group aims to give ‘every physician’ a voice
A new advocacy organization is launching on April 28 to give “every physician” a voice in decisions that affect their professional lives. But this group doesn’t intend to use the top-down approach to decision making seen in many medical societies.
Paul Teirstein, MD, chief of cardiology for Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., and founder of the new organization United Physicians, said in an interviewit is a nonprofit group that will operate through online participation.
He said
Projects would need the support of a two-thirds majority of United Physicians’ members to proceed with any proposals. Meetings will be held publicly online, Dr. Teirstein explained.
There is a need for a broad-based organization that will respond to the voice of practicing physicians rather than dictate legislative priorities from management ranks, he said.
Dr. Teirstein said he learned how challenging it is to bring physicians together on issues in 2014 in his battles against changes in maintenance of certification rules. The result of his efforts was the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS), set up to provide a means of certification different from the one offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Teirstein has argued that the approach of ABIM unfairly burdened physicians with a stepped-up schedule of testing and relied on an outdated approach to the practice of medicine.
Physicians busy with their practices feel they lack a unified voice in contesting the growing administrative burden and unproductive federal and state policies, Dr. Teirstein said.
He cited the limited enrollment in the largest physician groups as evidence of how disenfranchised many clinicians feel. There are about 1 million professional active physicians in the United States, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. Yet, even the largest physician group, the American Medical Association, has about 250,000 members, according to its 2018 annual report
“Clearly, most physicians believe they have little voice when it comes to health care decisions,” Dr. Teirstein said. “Our physician associations are governed from the top down. The leaders set the agenda. There may be delegates, but does leadership really listen to the delegates? Do the delegates really listen to the physician community?”
On its website, AMA describes itself as “physicians’ powerful ally in patient care” that works with more than 190 state and specialty medical societies. In recent months, James L. Madara, MD, the group’s chief executive officer, has urged governors to remove obstacles for physicians who want to fill workforce gaps in COVID-19 hot spots, among other actions.
In its annual report, the AMA, which declined to comment for this article, said its membership rose by 3.4% in 2018, double the growth rate of the previous year, thanks to a membership drive.
“The campaign celebrates the powerful work of our physician members and showcases how their individual efforts – along with the AMA – are moving medicine forward,” wrote Dr. Madara and other organization leaders in the report.
What Dr. Teirstein proposes is an inversion of the structure used by other medical societies, in which he says leaders and delegates dictate priorities.
United Physicians will use meetings and votes held by members online to decide which projects to pursue. Fees would be kept nominal, likely about $10 a year, depending on the number of members. Fees would be subject to change on the basis of expenses. The AMA has a sliding fee schedule that tops out with annual dues for physicians in regular practice of $420.
“There are no delegates, no representatives, and no board of directors. We want every physician to join and every physician to vote on every issue,” Dr. Teirstein said.
He stressed that he sees United Physicians as being complementary to the AMA.
“We do not compete with other organizations. Ideally, other organizations will use the platform,” Dr. Teirstein said. “If the AMA is considering a new policy, it can use the United Physicians platform to measure physician support. For example, through online discussions, petitions, and voting, it might learn a proposed policy needs a few tweaks to be accepted by most physicians.”
No compensation
Dr. Teirstein is among physician leaders who in recent years have sought to rally their colleagues to fight back against growing administrative burdens.
In a 2015 article in JAMA that was written with Medscape’s editor in chief, Eric Topol, MD, Dr. Teirstein criticized the ABIM’s drive to have physicians complete tests every 2 years and participate in continuous certification instead of recertifying once a decade, as had been the practice.
Dr. Teirstein formed the NBPAS as an alternative path for certification, with Dr. Topol serving on the board for that organization. Dr. Topol also will serve as a member of the advisory board for Teirstein’s United Physicians.
Dr. Topol wrote an article that appeared in the New Yorker last August that argued for physicians to move beyond the confines of medical societies and seek a path for broad-based activism. He said he intended to challenge medical societies, which, for all the good they do, can sometimes lose focus on that core relationship in favor of the bottom line.
Dr. Topol said in an interview that his colleague’s new project is a “good idea for a democratized platform at a time when physician solidarity is needed more than ever.”
Dr. Teirstein plans to run United Physicians on a volunteer basis. This builds on the approach he has used for NBPAS. He and the directors of the NBPAS will receive no compensation, he said, as was confirmed by the NBPAS.
In contrast, Dr. Madara made about $2.5 million in total compensation for 2018, according to the organization’s Internal Revenue Service filing. Physicians who served as trustees and officials for the AMA that year received annual compensation that ranged from around $60,000 to $291,980, depending on their duties.
“Having volunteer leadership mitigates conflict of interest. It also ensures leadership has a ‘day job’ that keeps them in touch with issues impacting practicing physicians,” Dr. Teirstein said
Start-up costs for United Physicians will be supported by NBPAS, but it will function as a completely independent organization, he added.
In introducing the group, Dr. Teirstein outlined suggestions for proposals it might pursue. These include making hospitals secure adequate supplies of personal protective equipment ahead of health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
His outline also includes suggestions for issues that likely will persist beyond the response to the pandemic.
Dr. Teirstein proposed a project for persuading insurance companies to provide online calendar appointments for peer-to-peer patient preauthorization. Failure of the insurer’s representative to attend would trigger approval of authorization under this proposal. He also suggested a lobbying effort for specific reimbursement for peer-to-peer, patient preauthorization phone calls.
Dr. Teirstein said he hopes most of the proposals will come from physicians who join United Physicians. Still, it is unclear whether United Physicians will succeed. An initial challenge could be in sorting through a barrage of competing ideas submitted to United Physicians.
But Dr. Teirstein appears hopeful about the changes for this experiment in online advocacy. He intends for United Physicians to be a pathway for clinicians to translate their complaints about policies into calls for action, with only a short investment of their time.
“Most of us have wonderful, engrossing jobs. It’s hard to beat helping a patient, and most of us get to do it every day,” Dr. .Teirstein said. “Will we take the 30 seconds required to sign up and become a United Physicians member? Will we spend a little time each week reviewing the issues and voting? I think it’s an experiment worth watching.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A new advocacy organization is launching on April 28 to give “every physician” a voice in decisions that affect their professional lives. But this group doesn’t intend to use the top-down approach to decision making seen in many medical societies.
Paul Teirstein, MD, chief of cardiology for Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., and founder of the new organization United Physicians, said in an interviewit is a nonprofit group that will operate through online participation.
He said
Projects would need the support of a two-thirds majority of United Physicians’ members to proceed with any proposals. Meetings will be held publicly online, Dr. Teirstein explained.
There is a need for a broad-based organization that will respond to the voice of practicing physicians rather than dictate legislative priorities from management ranks, he said.
Dr. Teirstein said he learned how challenging it is to bring physicians together on issues in 2014 in his battles against changes in maintenance of certification rules. The result of his efforts was the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS), set up to provide a means of certification different from the one offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Teirstein has argued that the approach of ABIM unfairly burdened physicians with a stepped-up schedule of testing and relied on an outdated approach to the practice of medicine.
Physicians busy with their practices feel they lack a unified voice in contesting the growing administrative burden and unproductive federal and state policies, Dr. Teirstein said.
He cited the limited enrollment in the largest physician groups as evidence of how disenfranchised many clinicians feel. There are about 1 million professional active physicians in the United States, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. Yet, even the largest physician group, the American Medical Association, has about 250,000 members, according to its 2018 annual report
“Clearly, most physicians believe they have little voice when it comes to health care decisions,” Dr. Teirstein said. “Our physician associations are governed from the top down. The leaders set the agenda. There may be delegates, but does leadership really listen to the delegates? Do the delegates really listen to the physician community?”
On its website, AMA describes itself as “physicians’ powerful ally in patient care” that works with more than 190 state and specialty medical societies. In recent months, James L. Madara, MD, the group’s chief executive officer, has urged governors to remove obstacles for physicians who want to fill workforce gaps in COVID-19 hot spots, among other actions.
In its annual report, the AMA, which declined to comment for this article, said its membership rose by 3.4% in 2018, double the growth rate of the previous year, thanks to a membership drive.
“The campaign celebrates the powerful work of our physician members and showcases how their individual efforts – along with the AMA – are moving medicine forward,” wrote Dr. Madara and other organization leaders in the report.
What Dr. Teirstein proposes is an inversion of the structure used by other medical societies, in which he says leaders and delegates dictate priorities.
United Physicians will use meetings and votes held by members online to decide which projects to pursue. Fees would be kept nominal, likely about $10 a year, depending on the number of members. Fees would be subject to change on the basis of expenses. The AMA has a sliding fee schedule that tops out with annual dues for physicians in regular practice of $420.
“There are no delegates, no representatives, and no board of directors. We want every physician to join and every physician to vote on every issue,” Dr. Teirstein said.
He stressed that he sees United Physicians as being complementary to the AMA.
“We do not compete with other organizations. Ideally, other organizations will use the platform,” Dr. Teirstein said. “If the AMA is considering a new policy, it can use the United Physicians platform to measure physician support. For example, through online discussions, petitions, and voting, it might learn a proposed policy needs a few tweaks to be accepted by most physicians.”
No compensation
Dr. Teirstein is among physician leaders who in recent years have sought to rally their colleagues to fight back against growing administrative burdens.
In a 2015 article in JAMA that was written with Medscape’s editor in chief, Eric Topol, MD, Dr. Teirstein criticized the ABIM’s drive to have physicians complete tests every 2 years and participate in continuous certification instead of recertifying once a decade, as had been the practice.
Dr. Teirstein formed the NBPAS as an alternative path for certification, with Dr. Topol serving on the board for that organization. Dr. Topol also will serve as a member of the advisory board for Teirstein’s United Physicians.
Dr. Topol wrote an article that appeared in the New Yorker last August that argued for physicians to move beyond the confines of medical societies and seek a path for broad-based activism. He said he intended to challenge medical societies, which, for all the good they do, can sometimes lose focus on that core relationship in favor of the bottom line.
Dr. Topol said in an interview that his colleague’s new project is a “good idea for a democratized platform at a time when physician solidarity is needed more than ever.”
Dr. Teirstein plans to run United Physicians on a volunteer basis. This builds on the approach he has used for NBPAS. He and the directors of the NBPAS will receive no compensation, he said, as was confirmed by the NBPAS.
In contrast, Dr. Madara made about $2.5 million in total compensation for 2018, according to the organization’s Internal Revenue Service filing. Physicians who served as trustees and officials for the AMA that year received annual compensation that ranged from around $60,000 to $291,980, depending on their duties.
“Having volunteer leadership mitigates conflict of interest. It also ensures leadership has a ‘day job’ that keeps them in touch with issues impacting practicing physicians,” Dr. Teirstein said
Start-up costs for United Physicians will be supported by NBPAS, but it will function as a completely independent organization, he added.
In introducing the group, Dr. Teirstein outlined suggestions for proposals it might pursue. These include making hospitals secure adequate supplies of personal protective equipment ahead of health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
His outline also includes suggestions for issues that likely will persist beyond the response to the pandemic.
Dr. Teirstein proposed a project for persuading insurance companies to provide online calendar appointments for peer-to-peer patient preauthorization. Failure of the insurer’s representative to attend would trigger approval of authorization under this proposal. He also suggested a lobbying effort for specific reimbursement for peer-to-peer, patient preauthorization phone calls.
Dr. Teirstein said he hopes most of the proposals will come from physicians who join United Physicians. Still, it is unclear whether United Physicians will succeed. An initial challenge could be in sorting through a barrage of competing ideas submitted to United Physicians.
But Dr. Teirstein appears hopeful about the changes for this experiment in online advocacy. He intends for United Physicians to be a pathway for clinicians to translate their complaints about policies into calls for action, with only a short investment of their time.
“Most of us have wonderful, engrossing jobs. It’s hard to beat helping a patient, and most of us get to do it every day,” Dr. .Teirstein said. “Will we take the 30 seconds required to sign up and become a United Physicians member? Will we spend a little time each week reviewing the issues and voting? I think it’s an experiment worth watching.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A new advocacy organization is launching on April 28 to give “every physician” a voice in decisions that affect their professional lives. But this group doesn’t intend to use the top-down approach to decision making seen in many medical societies.
Paul Teirstein, MD, chief of cardiology for Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., and founder of the new organization United Physicians, said in an interviewit is a nonprofit group that will operate through online participation.
He said
Projects would need the support of a two-thirds majority of United Physicians’ members to proceed with any proposals. Meetings will be held publicly online, Dr. Teirstein explained.
There is a need for a broad-based organization that will respond to the voice of practicing physicians rather than dictate legislative priorities from management ranks, he said.
Dr. Teirstein said he learned how challenging it is to bring physicians together on issues in 2014 in his battles against changes in maintenance of certification rules. The result of his efforts was the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS), set up to provide a means of certification different from the one offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Teirstein has argued that the approach of ABIM unfairly burdened physicians with a stepped-up schedule of testing and relied on an outdated approach to the practice of medicine.
Physicians busy with their practices feel they lack a unified voice in contesting the growing administrative burden and unproductive federal and state policies, Dr. Teirstein said.
He cited the limited enrollment in the largest physician groups as evidence of how disenfranchised many clinicians feel. There are about 1 million professional active physicians in the United States, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. Yet, even the largest physician group, the American Medical Association, has about 250,000 members, according to its 2018 annual report
“Clearly, most physicians believe they have little voice when it comes to health care decisions,” Dr. Teirstein said. “Our physician associations are governed from the top down. The leaders set the agenda. There may be delegates, but does leadership really listen to the delegates? Do the delegates really listen to the physician community?”
On its website, AMA describes itself as “physicians’ powerful ally in patient care” that works with more than 190 state and specialty medical societies. In recent months, James L. Madara, MD, the group’s chief executive officer, has urged governors to remove obstacles for physicians who want to fill workforce gaps in COVID-19 hot spots, among other actions.
In its annual report, the AMA, which declined to comment for this article, said its membership rose by 3.4% in 2018, double the growth rate of the previous year, thanks to a membership drive.
“The campaign celebrates the powerful work of our physician members and showcases how their individual efforts – along with the AMA – are moving medicine forward,” wrote Dr. Madara and other organization leaders in the report.
What Dr. Teirstein proposes is an inversion of the structure used by other medical societies, in which he says leaders and delegates dictate priorities.
United Physicians will use meetings and votes held by members online to decide which projects to pursue. Fees would be kept nominal, likely about $10 a year, depending on the number of members. Fees would be subject to change on the basis of expenses. The AMA has a sliding fee schedule that tops out with annual dues for physicians in regular practice of $420.
“There are no delegates, no representatives, and no board of directors. We want every physician to join and every physician to vote on every issue,” Dr. Teirstein said.
He stressed that he sees United Physicians as being complementary to the AMA.
“We do not compete with other organizations. Ideally, other organizations will use the platform,” Dr. Teirstein said. “If the AMA is considering a new policy, it can use the United Physicians platform to measure physician support. For example, through online discussions, petitions, and voting, it might learn a proposed policy needs a few tweaks to be accepted by most physicians.”
No compensation
Dr. Teirstein is among physician leaders who in recent years have sought to rally their colleagues to fight back against growing administrative burdens.
In a 2015 article in JAMA that was written with Medscape’s editor in chief, Eric Topol, MD, Dr. Teirstein criticized the ABIM’s drive to have physicians complete tests every 2 years and participate in continuous certification instead of recertifying once a decade, as had been the practice.
Dr. Teirstein formed the NBPAS as an alternative path for certification, with Dr. Topol serving on the board for that organization. Dr. Topol also will serve as a member of the advisory board for Teirstein’s United Physicians.
Dr. Topol wrote an article that appeared in the New Yorker last August that argued for physicians to move beyond the confines of medical societies and seek a path for broad-based activism. He said he intended to challenge medical societies, which, for all the good they do, can sometimes lose focus on that core relationship in favor of the bottom line.
Dr. Topol said in an interview that his colleague’s new project is a “good idea for a democratized platform at a time when physician solidarity is needed more than ever.”
Dr. Teirstein plans to run United Physicians on a volunteer basis. This builds on the approach he has used for NBPAS. He and the directors of the NBPAS will receive no compensation, he said, as was confirmed by the NBPAS.
In contrast, Dr. Madara made about $2.5 million in total compensation for 2018, according to the organization’s Internal Revenue Service filing. Physicians who served as trustees and officials for the AMA that year received annual compensation that ranged from around $60,000 to $291,980, depending on their duties.
“Having volunteer leadership mitigates conflict of interest. It also ensures leadership has a ‘day job’ that keeps them in touch with issues impacting practicing physicians,” Dr. Teirstein said
Start-up costs for United Physicians will be supported by NBPAS, but it will function as a completely independent organization, he added.
In introducing the group, Dr. Teirstein outlined suggestions for proposals it might pursue. These include making hospitals secure adequate supplies of personal protective equipment ahead of health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
His outline also includes suggestions for issues that likely will persist beyond the response to the pandemic.
Dr. Teirstein proposed a project for persuading insurance companies to provide online calendar appointments for peer-to-peer patient preauthorization. Failure of the insurer’s representative to attend would trigger approval of authorization under this proposal. He also suggested a lobbying effort for specific reimbursement for peer-to-peer, patient preauthorization phone calls.
Dr. Teirstein said he hopes most of the proposals will come from physicians who join United Physicians. Still, it is unclear whether United Physicians will succeed. An initial challenge could be in sorting through a barrage of competing ideas submitted to United Physicians.
But Dr. Teirstein appears hopeful about the changes for this experiment in online advocacy. He intends for United Physicians to be a pathway for clinicians to translate their complaints about policies into calls for action, with only a short investment of their time.
“Most of us have wonderful, engrossing jobs. It’s hard to beat helping a patient, and most of us get to do it every day,” Dr. .Teirstein said. “Will we take the 30 seconds required to sign up and become a United Physicians member? Will we spend a little time each week reviewing the issues and voting? I think it’s an experiment worth watching.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CMS suspends advance payment program to clinicians for COVID-19 relief
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will suspend its Medicare advance payment program for clinicians and is reevaluating how much to pay to hospitals going forward through particular COVID-19 relief initiatives. CMS announced the changes on April 26. Physicians and others who use the accelerated and advance Medicare payments program repay these advances, and they are typically given 1 year or less to repay the funding.
CMS said in a news release it will not accept new applications for the advanced Medicare payment, and it will be reevaluating all pending and new applications “in light of historical direct payments made available through the Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) Provider Relief Fund.”
The advance Medicare payment program predates COVID-19, although it previously was used on a much smaller scale. In the past 5 years, CMS approved about 100 total requests for advanced Medicare payment, with most being tied to natural disasters such as hurricanes.
CMS said it has approved, since March, more than 21,000 applications for advanced Medicare payment, totaling $59.6 billion, for hospitals and other organizations that bill its Part A program. In addition, CMS approved almost 24,000 applications for its Part B program, advancing $40.4 billion for physicians, other clinicians, and medical equipment suppliers.
CMS noted that Congress also has provided $175 billion in aid for the medical community that clinicians and medical organizations would not need to repay. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act enacted in March included $100 billion, and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, enacted March 24, includes another $75 billion.
A version of this article was originally published on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will suspend its Medicare advance payment program for clinicians and is reevaluating how much to pay to hospitals going forward through particular COVID-19 relief initiatives. CMS announced the changes on April 26. Physicians and others who use the accelerated and advance Medicare payments program repay these advances, and they are typically given 1 year or less to repay the funding.
CMS said in a news release it will not accept new applications for the advanced Medicare payment, and it will be reevaluating all pending and new applications “in light of historical direct payments made available through the Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) Provider Relief Fund.”
The advance Medicare payment program predates COVID-19, although it previously was used on a much smaller scale. In the past 5 years, CMS approved about 100 total requests for advanced Medicare payment, with most being tied to natural disasters such as hurricanes.
CMS said it has approved, since March, more than 21,000 applications for advanced Medicare payment, totaling $59.6 billion, for hospitals and other organizations that bill its Part A program. In addition, CMS approved almost 24,000 applications for its Part B program, advancing $40.4 billion for physicians, other clinicians, and medical equipment suppliers.
CMS noted that Congress also has provided $175 billion in aid for the medical community that clinicians and medical organizations would not need to repay. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act enacted in March included $100 billion, and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, enacted March 24, includes another $75 billion.
A version of this article was originally published on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will suspend its Medicare advance payment program for clinicians and is reevaluating how much to pay to hospitals going forward through particular COVID-19 relief initiatives. CMS announced the changes on April 26. Physicians and others who use the accelerated and advance Medicare payments program repay these advances, and they are typically given 1 year or less to repay the funding.
CMS said in a news release it will not accept new applications for the advanced Medicare payment, and it will be reevaluating all pending and new applications “in light of historical direct payments made available through the Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) Provider Relief Fund.”
The advance Medicare payment program predates COVID-19, although it previously was used on a much smaller scale. In the past 5 years, CMS approved about 100 total requests for advanced Medicare payment, with most being tied to natural disasters such as hurricanes.
CMS said it has approved, since March, more than 21,000 applications for advanced Medicare payment, totaling $59.6 billion, for hospitals and other organizations that bill its Part A program. In addition, CMS approved almost 24,000 applications for its Part B program, advancing $40.4 billion for physicians, other clinicians, and medical equipment suppliers.
CMS noted that Congress also has provided $175 billion in aid for the medical community that clinicians and medical organizations would not need to repay. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act enacted in March included $100 billion, and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, enacted March 24, includes another $75 billion.
A version of this article was originally published on Medscape.com.
Visa worries besiege immigrant physicians fighting COVID-19
Physicians and their sponsoring health care facilities shouldn’t have to worry about visa technicalities as they work on the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic, said health care leaders and immigration reform advocates.
In a press call hosted by the National Immigration Forum, speakers highlighted the need for fast and flexible solutions to enable health care workers, including physicians, to contribute to efforts to combat the pandemic.
Nationwide, over one in five physicians are immigrants, according to data from the Forum. That figure is over one in three in New York, New Jersey, and California, three states hard-hit by COVID-19 cases.
Many physicians stand willing and able to serve where they’re needed, but visa restrictions often block the ability of immigrant physicians to meet COVID-19 surges across the country, said Amit Vashist, MD, senior vice president and chief clinical officer for Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tenn., and a member of the public policy committee of the Society of Hospital Medicine. Ballad Health is an integrated health care system that serves 29 counties in the rural Southeast.
“This pandemic is a war with an invisible enemy, and immigrant physicians have been absolutely critical to providing quality care, especially on the front lines – but current visa restrictions have limited the ability to deploy these physicians in communities with the greatest need,” said Dr. Vashist during the press conference.
Visa requirements currently tie a non-US citizen resident physician to a particular institution and facility, limiting the ability to meet demand flexibly. “Federal agencies and Congress should provide additional flexibility in visa processing to allow for automatic renewals and expediting processing so immigrant medical workers can focus on treating the sick and not on their visa requirements,” said Dr. Vashist.
Dr. Vashist noted that, when he speaks with the many Ballad Health hospitalists who are waiting on permanent residency or citizenship, many of them also cite worries about the fate of their families should they themselves fall ill. Depending on the physician’s visa status, the family may face deportation without recourse if the physician should die.
“Tens of thousands of our physicians continue to endure years, even decades of waiting to obtain a permanent residency in the United States and at the same time, relentlessly and fearlessly serve their communities including in this COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Vashist. “It’s time we take care of them and their long-term immigration needs, and give them the peace of mind that they so desperately deserve,” he added.
Frank Trinity, chief legal officer for the Association of American Medical Colleges, also participated in the call. “For decades,” he said, the United States “has relied on physicians from other countries, especially in rural and underserved areas.”
One of these physicians, Mihir Patel, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Ballad Health, came to the United States in 2005, but 15 years later is still waiting for the green card that signifies U.S. permanent residency status. He is the corporate director of Ballad’s telemedicine program and is now also the medical director of the health system’s COVID-10 Strike Team.
“During the COVID crisis, these restrictions can cause significant negative impact for small rural hospitals,” Dr. Patel said. “There are physicians on a visa who cannot legally work outside their primary facilities – even though they are willing to do so.”
Regarding the pandemic, Mr. Trinity expressed concerns about whether the surge of patients would “outstrip our workforce.” He noted that, with an unprecedented number of desperately ill patients needing emergency care all across the country, “now is the time for our government to take every possible action to ensure that these highly qualified and courageous health professionals are available in the fight against the coronavirus.”
Mr. Trinity outlined five governmental actions AAMC is proposing to allow immigrant physicians to participate fully in the battle against COVID-19. The first would be to approve a blanket extension of visa deadlines. The second would be to expedite processing of visa extension applications, including reinstating expedited processing of physicians currently holding H-1B visa status.
The third action proposed by AAMC is to provide flexibility to visa sponsors during the emergency so that an individual whose visa is currently limited to a particular program can provide care at another location or by means of telehealth.
Fourth, AAMC proposes streamlined entry for the 4,200 physicians who are matched into residency programs so that they may begin their residencies on time or early.
Finally, Mr. Trinity said that AAMC is proposing that work authorizations be maintained for the 29,000 physicians who are currently not U.S. citizens and actively participating in the health care workforce.
Jacinta Ma, the Forum’s vice president of policy and advocacy, said immigrants are a critical component of the U.S. health care workforce as a whole.
“With immigrants accounting for 17% of health care workers amid the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s clear that they are vital to our communities,” she said. “Congress and the Trump administration both have an opportunity to advance solutions that protect immigrants, and remove immigration-related barriers for immigrant medical professionals by ensuring that immigrant doctors, nurses, home health care workers, researchers, and others can continue their vital work during this pandemic while being afforded adequate protection from COVID-19.”
Physicians and their sponsoring health care facilities shouldn’t have to worry about visa technicalities as they work on the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic, said health care leaders and immigration reform advocates.
In a press call hosted by the National Immigration Forum, speakers highlighted the need for fast and flexible solutions to enable health care workers, including physicians, to contribute to efforts to combat the pandemic.
Nationwide, over one in five physicians are immigrants, according to data from the Forum. That figure is over one in three in New York, New Jersey, and California, three states hard-hit by COVID-19 cases.
Many physicians stand willing and able to serve where they’re needed, but visa restrictions often block the ability of immigrant physicians to meet COVID-19 surges across the country, said Amit Vashist, MD, senior vice president and chief clinical officer for Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tenn., and a member of the public policy committee of the Society of Hospital Medicine. Ballad Health is an integrated health care system that serves 29 counties in the rural Southeast.
“This pandemic is a war with an invisible enemy, and immigrant physicians have been absolutely critical to providing quality care, especially on the front lines – but current visa restrictions have limited the ability to deploy these physicians in communities with the greatest need,” said Dr. Vashist during the press conference.
Visa requirements currently tie a non-US citizen resident physician to a particular institution and facility, limiting the ability to meet demand flexibly. “Federal agencies and Congress should provide additional flexibility in visa processing to allow for automatic renewals and expediting processing so immigrant medical workers can focus on treating the sick and not on their visa requirements,” said Dr. Vashist.
Dr. Vashist noted that, when he speaks with the many Ballad Health hospitalists who are waiting on permanent residency or citizenship, many of them also cite worries about the fate of their families should they themselves fall ill. Depending on the physician’s visa status, the family may face deportation without recourse if the physician should die.
“Tens of thousands of our physicians continue to endure years, even decades of waiting to obtain a permanent residency in the United States and at the same time, relentlessly and fearlessly serve their communities including in this COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Vashist. “It’s time we take care of them and their long-term immigration needs, and give them the peace of mind that they so desperately deserve,” he added.
Frank Trinity, chief legal officer for the Association of American Medical Colleges, also participated in the call. “For decades,” he said, the United States “has relied on physicians from other countries, especially in rural and underserved areas.”
One of these physicians, Mihir Patel, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Ballad Health, came to the United States in 2005, but 15 years later is still waiting for the green card that signifies U.S. permanent residency status. He is the corporate director of Ballad’s telemedicine program and is now also the medical director of the health system’s COVID-10 Strike Team.
“During the COVID crisis, these restrictions can cause significant negative impact for small rural hospitals,” Dr. Patel said. “There are physicians on a visa who cannot legally work outside their primary facilities – even though they are willing to do so.”
Regarding the pandemic, Mr. Trinity expressed concerns about whether the surge of patients would “outstrip our workforce.” He noted that, with an unprecedented number of desperately ill patients needing emergency care all across the country, “now is the time for our government to take every possible action to ensure that these highly qualified and courageous health professionals are available in the fight against the coronavirus.”
Mr. Trinity outlined five governmental actions AAMC is proposing to allow immigrant physicians to participate fully in the battle against COVID-19. The first would be to approve a blanket extension of visa deadlines. The second would be to expedite processing of visa extension applications, including reinstating expedited processing of physicians currently holding H-1B visa status.
The third action proposed by AAMC is to provide flexibility to visa sponsors during the emergency so that an individual whose visa is currently limited to a particular program can provide care at another location or by means of telehealth.
Fourth, AAMC proposes streamlined entry for the 4,200 physicians who are matched into residency programs so that they may begin their residencies on time or early.
Finally, Mr. Trinity said that AAMC is proposing that work authorizations be maintained for the 29,000 physicians who are currently not U.S. citizens and actively participating in the health care workforce.
Jacinta Ma, the Forum’s vice president of policy and advocacy, said immigrants are a critical component of the U.S. health care workforce as a whole.
“With immigrants accounting for 17% of health care workers amid the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s clear that they are vital to our communities,” she said. “Congress and the Trump administration both have an opportunity to advance solutions that protect immigrants, and remove immigration-related barriers for immigrant medical professionals by ensuring that immigrant doctors, nurses, home health care workers, researchers, and others can continue their vital work during this pandemic while being afforded adequate protection from COVID-19.”
Physicians and their sponsoring health care facilities shouldn’t have to worry about visa technicalities as they work on the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic, said health care leaders and immigration reform advocates.
In a press call hosted by the National Immigration Forum, speakers highlighted the need for fast and flexible solutions to enable health care workers, including physicians, to contribute to efforts to combat the pandemic.
Nationwide, over one in five physicians are immigrants, according to data from the Forum. That figure is over one in three in New York, New Jersey, and California, three states hard-hit by COVID-19 cases.
Many physicians stand willing and able to serve where they’re needed, but visa restrictions often block the ability of immigrant physicians to meet COVID-19 surges across the country, said Amit Vashist, MD, senior vice president and chief clinical officer for Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tenn., and a member of the public policy committee of the Society of Hospital Medicine. Ballad Health is an integrated health care system that serves 29 counties in the rural Southeast.
“This pandemic is a war with an invisible enemy, and immigrant physicians have been absolutely critical to providing quality care, especially on the front lines – but current visa restrictions have limited the ability to deploy these physicians in communities with the greatest need,” said Dr. Vashist during the press conference.
Visa requirements currently tie a non-US citizen resident physician to a particular institution and facility, limiting the ability to meet demand flexibly. “Federal agencies and Congress should provide additional flexibility in visa processing to allow for automatic renewals and expediting processing so immigrant medical workers can focus on treating the sick and not on their visa requirements,” said Dr. Vashist.
Dr. Vashist noted that, when he speaks with the many Ballad Health hospitalists who are waiting on permanent residency or citizenship, many of them also cite worries about the fate of their families should they themselves fall ill. Depending on the physician’s visa status, the family may face deportation without recourse if the physician should die.
“Tens of thousands of our physicians continue to endure years, even decades of waiting to obtain a permanent residency in the United States and at the same time, relentlessly and fearlessly serve their communities including in this COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Vashist. “It’s time we take care of them and their long-term immigration needs, and give them the peace of mind that they so desperately deserve,” he added.
Frank Trinity, chief legal officer for the Association of American Medical Colleges, also participated in the call. “For decades,” he said, the United States “has relied on physicians from other countries, especially in rural and underserved areas.”
One of these physicians, Mihir Patel, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Ballad Health, came to the United States in 2005, but 15 years later is still waiting for the green card that signifies U.S. permanent residency status. He is the corporate director of Ballad’s telemedicine program and is now also the medical director of the health system’s COVID-10 Strike Team.
“During the COVID crisis, these restrictions can cause significant negative impact for small rural hospitals,” Dr. Patel said. “There are physicians on a visa who cannot legally work outside their primary facilities – even though they are willing to do so.”
Regarding the pandemic, Mr. Trinity expressed concerns about whether the surge of patients would “outstrip our workforce.” He noted that, with an unprecedented number of desperately ill patients needing emergency care all across the country, “now is the time for our government to take every possible action to ensure that these highly qualified and courageous health professionals are available in the fight against the coronavirus.”
Mr. Trinity outlined five governmental actions AAMC is proposing to allow immigrant physicians to participate fully in the battle against COVID-19. The first would be to approve a blanket extension of visa deadlines. The second would be to expedite processing of visa extension applications, including reinstating expedited processing of physicians currently holding H-1B visa status.
The third action proposed by AAMC is to provide flexibility to visa sponsors during the emergency so that an individual whose visa is currently limited to a particular program can provide care at another location or by means of telehealth.
Fourth, AAMC proposes streamlined entry for the 4,200 physicians who are matched into residency programs so that they may begin their residencies on time or early.
Finally, Mr. Trinity said that AAMC is proposing that work authorizations be maintained for the 29,000 physicians who are currently not U.S. citizens and actively participating in the health care workforce.
Jacinta Ma, the Forum’s vice president of policy and advocacy, said immigrants are a critical component of the U.S. health care workforce as a whole.
“With immigrants accounting for 17% of health care workers amid the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s clear that they are vital to our communities,” she said. “Congress and the Trump administration both have an opportunity to advance solutions that protect immigrants, and remove immigration-related barriers for immigrant medical professionals by ensuring that immigrant doctors, nurses, home health care workers, researchers, and others can continue their vital work during this pandemic while being afforded adequate protection from COVID-19.”
COVID-19: Psychiatrists ‘more than a match’ for crisis moment
Tackling the COVID-19 crisis will require psychiatrists to muster the courage to lead, establish trust, and ultimately provide psychiatric care with competence, honesty, and compassion, said Patrice A. Harris, MD, an Atlanta-based psychiatrist who is president of the American Medical Association.
Leaders in psychiatry are uniquely positioned to combat a wave of disease misinformation, address inequities in care, and meet the logistical challenges of safely meeting patient needs as the outbreak continues, Dr. Harris said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting, which was held as a virtual live event.
“I believe you, we, are more than a match for this moment – a moment that requires our leadership and requires us to hold other leaders accountable as we fight this pandemic,” she said in remarks to online attendees.
Using trust to fight myths
Misinformation about COVID-19 has been “spreading rapidly, even intentionally, due to fear or political agendas,” said Dr. Harris, who became the 174th president of the AMA in June 2019.
Others believe the coronavirus crisis is a new way to force vaccinations on people who don’t want them, added Dr. Harris.
Myths, rumors, and conspiracy theories lead to “more illness and death,” she said, at a time when most Americans say they’ve lost trust in the federal government and even in other American citizens.
“Fortunately, people still trust us – their doctors,” she added. “We fight for science, we call out quackery and snake oil when we see it, [and] we are willing to counter the propaganda of the antiscience voice.”
Physicians are ranked among the most trusted professions because they are committed to seeing, acknowledging, and sharing patients’ human experience, “and of course, I believe we do that as psychiatrists more than most,” Dr. Harris said.
Fighting COVID-19 at the AMA level
During the pandemic, the AMA has advocated for adequate testing and supplies, adequate insurance coverage, and changes to current procedural technology (CPT) codes to streamline novel coronavirus testing. The AMA has also developed a free COVID-19 resource center on the JAMA Network website, Dr. Harris said, as well as guidance on protecting medical students responding to the pandemic.
The safety of health care clinicians remains a central issue for the AMA at a time when masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) remain in short supply.
In a recent letter to Vice President Mike Pence, who is leading the White House’s coronavirus task force, AMA Executive Vice President and CEO James L. Madara, MD, urged the Trump administration to undertake a Manhattan Project–like effort to expand capacity for needed supplies.
“We will continue to call on the White House, and APA has as well, to make sure these needs are met,” Dr. Harris said.
COVID-19 and inequities in care
Because the pandemic has had dramatic effects on African American communities across the United States, AMA Chief Health Equity Officer Aletha Maybank, MD, has made recent media appearances to highlight care inequities and what can be done about them.
Meanwhile, the AMA and other physician associations have urged the Trump Administration to collect, analyze, and make available COVID-19 data by race and ethnicity: “We can’t fix a problem until we identify a problem,” Dr. Harris said in her address to the APA.
Relying on science
In a virtual address hosted by the National Press Club earlier in April, Dr. Harris made an appeal for “relying on the science and evidence” to inform COVID-19–related decisions.
Elected officials need to “affirm science, evidence, and fact in their words and actions,” while media need to be vigilant in citing credible sources and challenging those who “chose to trade in misinformation,” she said in that address.
Speaking at the APA virtual meeting, Dr. Harris spoke of an “assault on science for several years” that inspired the National Press Club address. “We wanted to remind the public of its responsibility to focus on science and the evidence, for us to turn the tide against COVID-19,” she explained.
Physician care and self-care
While the AMA urges social distancing, Dr. Harris used the term “physical distancing” in her APA address. Physical distancing emphasizes the need for stay-at-home and shelter-in-place restrictions, while recognizing the need for maintaining meaningful social interactions, she explained.
Social media use represents one “opportunity” to bridge that gap when physical proximity is not an option, she added.
Dr. Harris also stressed the need for physicians to “take time out and practice self-care” to ensure that they are recharged and able to provide optimal patient care.
“We need to be there for others, but we have to put our own masks on first,” she said.
Dr. Harris reported no financial relationships with commercial interests.
SOURCE: Harris PA. APA 2020 Virtual Meeting.
Tackling the COVID-19 crisis will require psychiatrists to muster the courage to lead, establish trust, and ultimately provide psychiatric care with competence, honesty, and compassion, said Patrice A. Harris, MD, an Atlanta-based psychiatrist who is president of the American Medical Association.
Leaders in psychiatry are uniquely positioned to combat a wave of disease misinformation, address inequities in care, and meet the logistical challenges of safely meeting patient needs as the outbreak continues, Dr. Harris said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting, which was held as a virtual live event.
“I believe you, we, are more than a match for this moment – a moment that requires our leadership and requires us to hold other leaders accountable as we fight this pandemic,” she said in remarks to online attendees.
Using trust to fight myths
Misinformation about COVID-19 has been “spreading rapidly, even intentionally, due to fear or political agendas,” said Dr. Harris, who became the 174th president of the AMA in June 2019.
Others believe the coronavirus crisis is a new way to force vaccinations on people who don’t want them, added Dr. Harris.
Myths, rumors, and conspiracy theories lead to “more illness and death,” she said, at a time when most Americans say they’ve lost trust in the federal government and even in other American citizens.
“Fortunately, people still trust us – their doctors,” she added. “We fight for science, we call out quackery and snake oil when we see it, [and] we are willing to counter the propaganda of the antiscience voice.”
Physicians are ranked among the most trusted professions because they are committed to seeing, acknowledging, and sharing patients’ human experience, “and of course, I believe we do that as psychiatrists more than most,” Dr. Harris said.
Fighting COVID-19 at the AMA level
During the pandemic, the AMA has advocated for adequate testing and supplies, adequate insurance coverage, and changes to current procedural technology (CPT) codes to streamline novel coronavirus testing. The AMA has also developed a free COVID-19 resource center on the JAMA Network website, Dr. Harris said, as well as guidance on protecting medical students responding to the pandemic.
The safety of health care clinicians remains a central issue for the AMA at a time when masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) remain in short supply.
In a recent letter to Vice President Mike Pence, who is leading the White House’s coronavirus task force, AMA Executive Vice President and CEO James L. Madara, MD, urged the Trump administration to undertake a Manhattan Project–like effort to expand capacity for needed supplies.
“We will continue to call on the White House, and APA has as well, to make sure these needs are met,” Dr. Harris said.
COVID-19 and inequities in care
Because the pandemic has had dramatic effects on African American communities across the United States, AMA Chief Health Equity Officer Aletha Maybank, MD, has made recent media appearances to highlight care inequities and what can be done about them.
Meanwhile, the AMA and other physician associations have urged the Trump Administration to collect, analyze, and make available COVID-19 data by race and ethnicity: “We can’t fix a problem until we identify a problem,” Dr. Harris said in her address to the APA.
Relying on science
In a virtual address hosted by the National Press Club earlier in April, Dr. Harris made an appeal for “relying on the science and evidence” to inform COVID-19–related decisions.
Elected officials need to “affirm science, evidence, and fact in their words and actions,” while media need to be vigilant in citing credible sources and challenging those who “chose to trade in misinformation,” she said in that address.
Speaking at the APA virtual meeting, Dr. Harris spoke of an “assault on science for several years” that inspired the National Press Club address. “We wanted to remind the public of its responsibility to focus on science and the evidence, for us to turn the tide against COVID-19,” she explained.
Physician care and self-care
While the AMA urges social distancing, Dr. Harris used the term “physical distancing” in her APA address. Physical distancing emphasizes the need for stay-at-home and shelter-in-place restrictions, while recognizing the need for maintaining meaningful social interactions, she explained.
Social media use represents one “opportunity” to bridge that gap when physical proximity is not an option, she added.
Dr. Harris also stressed the need for physicians to “take time out and practice self-care” to ensure that they are recharged and able to provide optimal patient care.
“We need to be there for others, but we have to put our own masks on first,” she said.
Dr. Harris reported no financial relationships with commercial interests.
SOURCE: Harris PA. APA 2020 Virtual Meeting.
Tackling the COVID-19 crisis will require psychiatrists to muster the courage to lead, establish trust, and ultimately provide psychiatric care with competence, honesty, and compassion, said Patrice A. Harris, MD, an Atlanta-based psychiatrist who is president of the American Medical Association.
Leaders in psychiatry are uniquely positioned to combat a wave of disease misinformation, address inequities in care, and meet the logistical challenges of safely meeting patient needs as the outbreak continues, Dr. Harris said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting, which was held as a virtual live event.
“I believe you, we, are more than a match for this moment – a moment that requires our leadership and requires us to hold other leaders accountable as we fight this pandemic,” she said in remarks to online attendees.
Using trust to fight myths
Misinformation about COVID-19 has been “spreading rapidly, even intentionally, due to fear or political agendas,” said Dr. Harris, who became the 174th president of the AMA in June 2019.
Others believe the coronavirus crisis is a new way to force vaccinations on people who don’t want them, added Dr. Harris.
Myths, rumors, and conspiracy theories lead to “more illness and death,” she said, at a time when most Americans say they’ve lost trust in the federal government and even in other American citizens.
“Fortunately, people still trust us – their doctors,” she added. “We fight for science, we call out quackery and snake oil when we see it, [and] we are willing to counter the propaganda of the antiscience voice.”
Physicians are ranked among the most trusted professions because they are committed to seeing, acknowledging, and sharing patients’ human experience, “and of course, I believe we do that as psychiatrists more than most,” Dr. Harris said.
Fighting COVID-19 at the AMA level
During the pandemic, the AMA has advocated for adequate testing and supplies, adequate insurance coverage, and changes to current procedural technology (CPT) codes to streamline novel coronavirus testing. The AMA has also developed a free COVID-19 resource center on the JAMA Network website, Dr. Harris said, as well as guidance on protecting medical students responding to the pandemic.
The safety of health care clinicians remains a central issue for the AMA at a time when masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) remain in short supply.
In a recent letter to Vice President Mike Pence, who is leading the White House’s coronavirus task force, AMA Executive Vice President and CEO James L. Madara, MD, urged the Trump administration to undertake a Manhattan Project–like effort to expand capacity for needed supplies.
“We will continue to call on the White House, and APA has as well, to make sure these needs are met,” Dr. Harris said.
COVID-19 and inequities in care
Because the pandemic has had dramatic effects on African American communities across the United States, AMA Chief Health Equity Officer Aletha Maybank, MD, has made recent media appearances to highlight care inequities and what can be done about them.
Meanwhile, the AMA and other physician associations have urged the Trump Administration to collect, analyze, and make available COVID-19 data by race and ethnicity: “We can’t fix a problem until we identify a problem,” Dr. Harris said in her address to the APA.
Relying on science
In a virtual address hosted by the National Press Club earlier in April, Dr. Harris made an appeal for “relying on the science and evidence” to inform COVID-19–related decisions.
Elected officials need to “affirm science, evidence, and fact in their words and actions,” while media need to be vigilant in citing credible sources and challenging those who “chose to trade in misinformation,” she said in that address.
Speaking at the APA virtual meeting, Dr. Harris spoke of an “assault on science for several years” that inspired the National Press Club address. “We wanted to remind the public of its responsibility to focus on science and the evidence, for us to turn the tide against COVID-19,” she explained.
Physician care and self-care
While the AMA urges social distancing, Dr. Harris used the term “physical distancing” in her APA address. Physical distancing emphasizes the need for stay-at-home and shelter-in-place restrictions, while recognizing the need for maintaining meaningful social interactions, she explained.
Social media use represents one “opportunity” to bridge that gap when physical proximity is not an option, she added.
Dr. Harris also stressed the need for physicians to “take time out and practice self-care” to ensure that they are recharged and able to provide optimal patient care.
“We need to be there for others, but we have to put our own masks on first,” she said.
Dr. Harris reported no financial relationships with commercial interests.
SOURCE: Harris PA. APA 2020 Virtual Meeting.
FROM APA 2020
COVID-19 decimates outpatient visits
There has been a massive decline in outpatient office visits as patients have stayed home – likely deferring needed care – because of COVID-19, new research shows.
The number of visits to ambulatory practices dropped by a whopping 60% in mid-March, and continues to be down by at least 50% since early February, according to new data compiled and analyzed by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company.
Phreesia – which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments – has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states; in a typical year, Phreesia tracks 50 million outpatient visits.
The report was published online April 23 by the Commonwealth Fund.
The company captured data on visits from February 1 through April 16. The decline was greatest in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, where, at the steepest end of the decline in late March, visits were down 66%.
They have rebounded slightly since then but are still down 64%. Practices in the mountain states had the smallest decline, but visits were down by 45% as of April 16.
Many practices have attempted to reach out to patients through telemedicine. As of April 16, about 30% of all visits tracked by Phreesia were provided via telemedicine – by phone or through video. That’s a monumental increase from mid-February, when zero visits were conducted virtually.
However, the Harvard researchers found that telemedicine visits barely made up for the huge decline in office visits.
Decline by specialty
Not surprisingly, declining visits have been steeper in procedure-oriented specialties.
Overall visits – including telemedicine – to ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists had declined by 79% and 75%, respectively, as of the week of April 5. Dermatology saw a 73% decline. Surgery, pulmonology, urology, orthopedics, cardiology, and gastroenterology all experienced declines ranging from 61% to 66%.
Primary care offices, oncology, endocrinology, and obstetrics/gynecology all fared slightly better, with visits down by half. Behavioral health experienced the lowest rate of decline (30%).
School-aged children were skipping care most often. The study showed a 71% drop in visits in 7- to 17-year-olds, and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans over age 65 also stayed away from their doctors. Only half of those aged 18 to 64 reduced their physician visits.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There has been a massive decline in outpatient office visits as patients have stayed home – likely deferring needed care – because of COVID-19, new research shows.
The number of visits to ambulatory practices dropped by a whopping 60% in mid-March, and continues to be down by at least 50% since early February, according to new data compiled and analyzed by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company.
Phreesia – which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments – has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states; in a typical year, Phreesia tracks 50 million outpatient visits.
The report was published online April 23 by the Commonwealth Fund.
The company captured data on visits from February 1 through April 16. The decline was greatest in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, where, at the steepest end of the decline in late March, visits were down 66%.
They have rebounded slightly since then but are still down 64%. Practices in the mountain states had the smallest decline, but visits were down by 45% as of April 16.
Many practices have attempted to reach out to patients through telemedicine. As of April 16, about 30% of all visits tracked by Phreesia were provided via telemedicine – by phone or through video. That’s a monumental increase from mid-February, when zero visits were conducted virtually.
However, the Harvard researchers found that telemedicine visits barely made up for the huge decline in office visits.
Decline by specialty
Not surprisingly, declining visits have been steeper in procedure-oriented specialties.
Overall visits – including telemedicine – to ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists had declined by 79% and 75%, respectively, as of the week of April 5. Dermatology saw a 73% decline. Surgery, pulmonology, urology, orthopedics, cardiology, and gastroenterology all experienced declines ranging from 61% to 66%.
Primary care offices, oncology, endocrinology, and obstetrics/gynecology all fared slightly better, with visits down by half. Behavioral health experienced the lowest rate of decline (30%).
School-aged children were skipping care most often. The study showed a 71% drop in visits in 7- to 17-year-olds, and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans over age 65 also stayed away from their doctors. Only half of those aged 18 to 64 reduced their physician visits.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There has been a massive decline in outpatient office visits as patients have stayed home – likely deferring needed care – because of COVID-19, new research shows.
The number of visits to ambulatory practices dropped by a whopping 60% in mid-March, and continues to be down by at least 50% since early February, according to new data compiled and analyzed by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company.
Phreesia – which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments – has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states; in a typical year, Phreesia tracks 50 million outpatient visits.
The report was published online April 23 by the Commonwealth Fund.
The company captured data on visits from February 1 through April 16. The decline was greatest in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, where, at the steepest end of the decline in late March, visits were down 66%.
They have rebounded slightly since then but are still down 64%. Practices in the mountain states had the smallest decline, but visits were down by 45% as of April 16.
Many practices have attempted to reach out to patients through telemedicine. As of April 16, about 30% of all visits tracked by Phreesia were provided via telemedicine – by phone or through video. That’s a monumental increase from mid-February, when zero visits were conducted virtually.
However, the Harvard researchers found that telemedicine visits barely made up for the huge decline in office visits.
Decline by specialty
Not surprisingly, declining visits have been steeper in procedure-oriented specialties.
Overall visits – including telemedicine – to ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists had declined by 79% and 75%, respectively, as of the week of April 5. Dermatology saw a 73% decline. Surgery, pulmonology, urology, orthopedics, cardiology, and gastroenterology all experienced declines ranging from 61% to 66%.
Primary care offices, oncology, endocrinology, and obstetrics/gynecology all fared slightly better, with visits down by half. Behavioral health experienced the lowest rate of decline (30%).
School-aged children were skipping care most often. The study showed a 71% drop in visits in 7- to 17-year-olds, and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans over age 65 also stayed away from their doctors. Only half of those aged 18 to 64 reduced their physician visits.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASCO panel outlines cancer care challenges during COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.
“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.
“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
Care of COVID-free patients
For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.
“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.
Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.
The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
Trials halted or slowed
Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.
“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.
“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.
The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.
“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.
Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
Lessons from the front lines
Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.
Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.
Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.
“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.
The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.
“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
A view from Washington state
Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.
Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.
“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.
Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
ASCO resources
Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.
“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.
“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
Care of COVID-free patients
For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.
“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.
Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.
The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
Trials halted or slowed
Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.
“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.
“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.
The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.
“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.
Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
Lessons from the front lines
Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.
Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.
Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.
“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.
The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.
“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
A view from Washington state
Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.
Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.
“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.
Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
ASCO resources
Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.
“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.
“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
Care of COVID-free patients
For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.
“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.
Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.
The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
Trials halted or slowed
Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.
“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.
“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.
The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.
“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.
Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
Lessons from the front lines
Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.
Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.
Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.
“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.
The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.
“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
A view from Washington state
Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.
Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.
“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.
Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
ASCO resources
Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.
COVID-19: Frequently asked clinical questions
Question
How should patients on immunosuppressive therapy be advised during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Answer
In general, those patients who have not tested positive, have not been exposed, and are asymptomatic should continue their medications as prescribed.
The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement on April 14, recommending that stable patients continue their medications. Those with known exposure but without confirmed infection may continue hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and NSAIDs.
Immunosuppressants, non–IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily. Anti-malarial therapies (hydroxycholoroquine and chloroquine) may be continued and IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances.1
The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the discussion of continuation of biologics be based on a case-by-case basis, citing insufficient evidence to recommend against discontinuation at this time in those patients who have not tested positive. In patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 it is recommended that biologic therapy be suspended until symptoms have resolved.2
Question
Should I continue preventive services during peak COVID-19?
Answer
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends delaying all elective ambulatory provider visits. In general, preventative services, such as adult immunizations, lipid screening, and cancer screenings, should be delayed. Additionally, the CDC recommends reaching out to patients who are at high risk for complications from respiratory diseases to ensure medication adherence and provide resources if these patients become ill. Facilities can reduce transmission of COVID-19 by triaging and assessing patients through virtual visits through phone calls, video conferences, text-monitoring systems, and other telemedicine tools. Physicians should try to provide routine and chronic care through virtual visits when possible over in-person visits.3
Question
Should I continue to vaccinate my pediatric population during peak COVID-19?
Answer
Practices that schedule separate well visits and sick visits in different sessions or locations can continue to provide well child visits. A practice could, for example, schedule well visits in the morning and sick visits in the afternoon if a single facility is used. These practices should prioritize newborn care and vaccinations of children, especially for those under the age of 24 months.4
Question
Can physicians use telehealth (phone only or audiovisual) to conduct visits with Medicare patients even if they are new patients?
Answer
Effective March 1 through the duration of the pandemic, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as an in-office visit. On March 30th, the Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services announced new policies for physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines were updated on April 9.
Audio-only visits are now permitted and the limit on the number of these kinds of visits allowed per month has been waived. Controlled substances can be prescribed via telehealth; however, complying with each state’s individual laws is still required.
Use of any two-way, audiovisual device is permitted. The level of service billed for visits with both audio and visual components is the same as an in-office visit. Telemedicine can be used for both new and existing patients.5
A list of services that may be rendered via telehealth are available on the CMS website.6
It will be important to regularly check the references given, as information on some of these topics is updated frequently.
Dr. Chuong is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency, Dr. Flanagan is a third-year resident, and Dr. Matthews is an intern, all at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.
References
1. ACR issues COVID-19 treatment guidance for rheumatic disease patients.
2. American Academy of Dermatology: Guidance on the use of biologic agents during COVID-19 outbreak.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Actions to take in response to community transmission of COVID-19.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maintaining childhood immunizations during COVID19 pandemic.
5. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. COVID-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) billing.
6. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. List of telehealth services.
Question
How should patients on immunosuppressive therapy be advised during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Answer
In general, those patients who have not tested positive, have not been exposed, and are asymptomatic should continue their medications as prescribed.
The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement on April 14, recommending that stable patients continue their medications. Those with known exposure but without confirmed infection may continue hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and NSAIDs.
Immunosuppressants, non–IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily. Anti-malarial therapies (hydroxycholoroquine and chloroquine) may be continued and IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances.1
The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the discussion of continuation of biologics be based on a case-by-case basis, citing insufficient evidence to recommend against discontinuation at this time in those patients who have not tested positive. In patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 it is recommended that biologic therapy be suspended until symptoms have resolved.2
Question
Should I continue preventive services during peak COVID-19?
Answer
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends delaying all elective ambulatory provider visits. In general, preventative services, such as adult immunizations, lipid screening, and cancer screenings, should be delayed. Additionally, the CDC recommends reaching out to patients who are at high risk for complications from respiratory diseases to ensure medication adherence and provide resources if these patients become ill. Facilities can reduce transmission of COVID-19 by triaging and assessing patients through virtual visits through phone calls, video conferences, text-monitoring systems, and other telemedicine tools. Physicians should try to provide routine and chronic care through virtual visits when possible over in-person visits.3
Question
Should I continue to vaccinate my pediatric population during peak COVID-19?
Answer
Practices that schedule separate well visits and sick visits in different sessions or locations can continue to provide well child visits. A practice could, for example, schedule well visits in the morning and sick visits in the afternoon if a single facility is used. These practices should prioritize newborn care and vaccinations of children, especially for those under the age of 24 months.4
Question
Can physicians use telehealth (phone only or audiovisual) to conduct visits with Medicare patients even if they are new patients?
Answer
Effective March 1 through the duration of the pandemic, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as an in-office visit. On March 30th, the Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services announced new policies for physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines were updated on April 9.
Audio-only visits are now permitted and the limit on the number of these kinds of visits allowed per month has been waived. Controlled substances can be prescribed via telehealth; however, complying with each state’s individual laws is still required.
Use of any two-way, audiovisual device is permitted. The level of service billed for visits with both audio and visual components is the same as an in-office visit. Telemedicine can be used for both new and existing patients.5
A list of services that may be rendered via telehealth are available on the CMS website.6
It will be important to regularly check the references given, as information on some of these topics is updated frequently.
Dr. Chuong is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency, Dr. Flanagan is a third-year resident, and Dr. Matthews is an intern, all at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.
References
1. ACR issues COVID-19 treatment guidance for rheumatic disease patients.
2. American Academy of Dermatology: Guidance on the use of biologic agents during COVID-19 outbreak.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Actions to take in response to community transmission of COVID-19.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maintaining childhood immunizations during COVID19 pandemic.
5. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. COVID-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) billing.
6. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. List of telehealth services.
Question
How should patients on immunosuppressive therapy be advised during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Answer
In general, those patients who have not tested positive, have not been exposed, and are asymptomatic should continue their medications as prescribed.
The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement on April 14, recommending that stable patients continue their medications. Those with known exposure but without confirmed infection may continue hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and NSAIDs.
Immunosuppressants, non–IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily. Anti-malarial therapies (hydroxycholoroquine and chloroquine) may be continued and IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances.1
The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the discussion of continuation of biologics be based on a case-by-case basis, citing insufficient evidence to recommend against discontinuation at this time in those patients who have not tested positive. In patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 it is recommended that biologic therapy be suspended until symptoms have resolved.2
Question
Should I continue preventive services during peak COVID-19?
Answer
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends delaying all elective ambulatory provider visits. In general, preventative services, such as adult immunizations, lipid screening, and cancer screenings, should be delayed. Additionally, the CDC recommends reaching out to patients who are at high risk for complications from respiratory diseases to ensure medication adherence and provide resources if these patients become ill. Facilities can reduce transmission of COVID-19 by triaging and assessing patients through virtual visits through phone calls, video conferences, text-monitoring systems, and other telemedicine tools. Physicians should try to provide routine and chronic care through virtual visits when possible over in-person visits.3
Question
Should I continue to vaccinate my pediatric population during peak COVID-19?
Answer
Practices that schedule separate well visits and sick visits in different sessions or locations can continue to provide well child visits. A practice could, for example, schedule well visits in the morning and sick visits in the afternoon if a single facility is used. These practices should prioritize newborn care and vaccinations of children, especially for those under the age of 24 months.4
Question
Can physicians use telehealth (phone only or audiovisual) to conduct visits with Medicare patients even if they are new patients?
Answer
Effective March 1 through the duration of the pandemic, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as an in-office visit. On March 30th, the Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services announced new policies for physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines were updated on April 9.
Audio-only visits are now permitted and the limit on the number of these kinds of visits allowed per month has been waived. Controlled substances can be prescribed via telehealth; however, complying with each state’s individual laws is still required.
Use of any two-way, audiovisual device is permitted. The level of service billed for visits with both audio and visual components is the same as an in-office visit. Telemedicine can be used for both new and existing patients.5
A list of services that may be rendered via telehealth are available on the CMS website.6
It will be important to regularly check the references given, as information on some of these topics is updated frequently.
Dr. Chuong is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency, Dr. Flanagan is a third-year resident, and Dr. Matthews is an intern, all at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.
References
1. ACR issues COVID-19 treatment guidance for rheumatic disease patients.
2. American Academy of Dermatology: Guidance on the use of biologic agents during COVID-19 outbreak.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Actions to take in response to community transmission of COVID-19.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maintaining childhood immunizations during COVID19 pandemic.
5. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. COVID-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) billing.
6. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. List of telehealth services.
COVID-19: Helping health care workers on front lines
Psychiatrists are intervening with less conventional strategies
Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.
“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”
In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards. 
“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”
It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
Stress management is critical
Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”
The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).
In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”
Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
Guilt is a prevailing theme
Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”
The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”
How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.
“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”
She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
Partnerships are forming
At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”
The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”
What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.
She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.
Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”
Don’t forget the self-care
There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.
“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”
The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”
Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.
“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”
Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”
The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.
This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”
How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”
Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”
Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”
Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
Psychiatrists are intervening with less conventional strategies
Psychiatrists are intervening with less conventional strategies
Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.
“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”
In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards.
“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”
It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
Stress management is critical
Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”
The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).
In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”
Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
Guilt is a prevailing theme
Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”
The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”
How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.
“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”
She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
Partnerships are forming
At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”
The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”
What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.
She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.
Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”
Don’t forget the self-care
There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.
“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”
The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”
Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.
“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”
Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”
The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.
This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”
How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”
Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”
Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”
Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.
“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”
In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards.
“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”
It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
Stress management is critical
Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”
The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).
In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”
Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
Guilt is a prevailing theme
Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”
The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”
How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.
“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”
She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
Partnerships are forming
At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”
The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”
What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.
She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.
Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”
Don’t forget the self-care
There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.
“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”
The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”
Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.
“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”
Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”
The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.
This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”
How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”
Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”
Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”
Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.