Practice Management

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Resident Matching Program’s (NRMP) decision to nix a proposal for a 2-day medical resident matching process has left some students scratching their heads about why the organization discounted the opinions of the majority of respondents – mostly medical students, residents, and fellows – who supported the change.

The program’s decision comes after nearly 3 months of feedback from the public, medical students, and education community. Although about 60% of public respondents believed the change could reduce stress and allow students more time for momentous career decisions, the program’s board of directors decided the disadvantages were “of greater consequence,” according to a Oct. 28 statement.

Those disadvantages included introducing application or interview behaviors that could increase students’ stress; potentially identifying partially matched or unmatched applicants, which could lead to bias; and extending the match process time for those applicants.

In addition, members of 12 medical education and student organizations raised other concerns, such as the proposed change not addressing high application numbers, according to the statement. NRMP has reported record numbers of applicants over the past few years, typically with more applicants than available program slots.

“While the testimony gave nod to the positive aspects of the proposal ... there was substantially more concern voiced about the potential negative consequences identified in the public comments,” NRMP President and CEO Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, told this news organization. Some of those issues could not be addressed without further study, so the board decided not to proceed with the proposal, she explained.

The proposal would have separated the Main Residency Match into two phases and replaced the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP), in which unmatched or partially matched applicants apply for unfilled residency positions. Under the proposed change, each phase would have operated the same way, from rank order lists and using a matching algorithm to a pair of Match Days instead of a single day.

The two-phase process would have given students who didn’t match more time to carefully weigh residency programs – they can apply to up to 45 placements as part of SOAP – that will guide their career path for the next few years, PGY-1 intern Asim A., who asked not to be identified further, told this news organization. The alternative is a hasty decision once students learn which residency spots are available, he added. “Applicants would have breathing room to make a more informed decision.”

Asim, who is Canadian, said he is participating in a transitional year in internal medicine in the hopes of being matched into internal medicine or psychiatry. He said Canada’s two-phase match is a “lot less stressful” than the U.S. system.

Meanwhile, students on Reddit’s medical school community also questioned NRMP’s decision.

“A significant majority of those surveyed thought it would be beneficial. But NRMP decides to not go through with it,” one Reddit user wrote. Another posted, “The one thing that could have improved the match and they chose not to do it.”

Others supported the decision to retain a 1-day match.

“I think this was the right call,” Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken medical education blogger, tweeted after learning of NRMP’s decision. Dr. Carmody, a pediatric nephrologist, previously expressed to this news organization misgivings about whether the two-phase match would make it difficult for programs to thoroughly review candidates and vice versa. He was concerned that it would compress the interview season and pressure programs to rapidly review applicants and conduct interviews.

More than 8,000 people responded to the public survey that began in August and ran for a month. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (60%) were students, residents, or fellows. About 25% included faculty, program directors, and staff. Among the survey findings, respondents were equally divided between whether the two-phase match would be modestly advantageous (30%) or significantly advantageous (30%) compared to 20% who viewed it as modestly or significantly disadvantageous.

The NRMP said it would continue engaging with the community through focus groups and other means to improve the match experience and transition to residency.

“It is important to remember that a proposal is just that,” Dr. Lamb told this news orgnization, “an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of an idea or framework ... and to mitigate unwanted consequences determined to be detrimental to learners and programs.”

The NRMP will involve the community in future discussions “to continue to give learners a voice,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Resident Matching Program’s (NRMP) decision to nix a proposal for a 2-day medical resident matching process has left some students scratching their heads about why the organization discounted the opinions of the majority of respondents – mostly medical students, residents, and fellows – who supported the change.

The program’s decision comes after nearly 3 months of feedback from the public, medical students, and education community. Although about 60% of public respondents believed the change could reduce stress and allow students more time for momentous career decisions, the program’s board of directors decided the disadvantages were “of greater consequence,” according to a Oct. 28 statement.

Those disadvantages included introducing application or interview behaviors that could increase students’ stress; potentially identifying partially matched or unmatched applicants, which could lead to bias; and extending the match process time for those applicants.

In addition, members of 12 medical education and student organizations raised other concerns, such as the proposed change not addressing high application numbers, according to the statement. NRMP has reported record numbers of applicants over the past few years, typically with more applicants than available program slots.

“While the testimony gave nod to the positive aspects of the proposal ... there was substantially more concern voiced about the potential negative consequences identified in the public comments,” NRMP President and CEO Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, told this news organization. Some of those issues could not be addressed without further study, so the board decided not to proceed with the proposal, she explained.

The proposal would have separated the Main Residency Match into two phases and replaced the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP), in which unmatched or partially matched applicants apply for unfilled residency positions. Under the proposed change, each phase would have operated the same way, from rank order lists and using a matching algorithm to a pair of Match Days instead of a single day.

The two-phase process would have given students who didn’t match more time to carefully weigh residency programs – they can apply to up to 45 placements as part of SOAP – that will guide their career path for the next few years, PGY-1 intern Asim A., who asked not to be identified further, told this news organization. The alternative is a hasty decision once students learn which residency spots are available, he added. “Applicants would have breathing room to make a more informed decision.”

Asim, who is Canadian, said he is participating in a transitional year in internal medicine in the hopes of being matched into internal medicine or psychiatry. He said Canada’s two-phase match is a “lot less stressful” than the U.S. system.

Meanwhile, students on Reddit’s medical school community also questioned NRMP’s decision.

“A significant majority of those surveyed thought it would be beneficial. But NRMP decides to not go through with it,” one Reddit user wrote. Another posted, “The one thing that could have improved the match and they chose not to do it.”

Others supported the decision to retain a 1-day match.

“I think this was the right call,” Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken medical education blogger, tweeted after learning of NRMP’s decision. Dr. Carmody, a pediatric nephrologist, previously expressed to this news organization misgivings about whether the two-phase match would make it difficult for programs to thoroughly review candidates and vice versa. He was concerned that it would compress the interview season and pressure programs to rapidly review applicants and conduct interviews.

More than 8,000 people responded to the public survey that began in August and ran for a month. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (60%) were students, residents, or fellows. About 25% included faculty, program directors, and staff. Among the survey findings, respondents were equally divided between whether the two-phase match would be modestly advantageous (30%) or significantly advantageous (30%) compared to 20% who viewed it as modestly or significantly disadvantageous.

The NRMP said it would continue engaging with the community through focus groups and other means to improve the match experience and transition to residency.

“It is important to remember that a proposal is just that,” Dr. Lamb told this news orgnization, “an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of an idea or framework ... and to mitigate unwanted consequences determined to be detrimental to learners and programs.”

The NRMP will involve the community in future discussions “to continue to give learners a voice,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Resident Matching Program’s (NRMP) decision to nix a proposal for a 2-day medical resident matching process has left some students scratching their heads about why the organization discounted the opinions of the majority of respondents – mostly medical students, residents, and fellows – who supported the change.

The program’s decision comes after nearly 3 months of feedback from the public, medical students, and education community. Although about 60% of public respondents believed the change could reduce stress and allow students more time for momentous career decisions, the program’s board of directors decided the disadvantages were “of greater consequence,” according to a Oct. 28 statement.

Those disadvantages included introducing application or interview behaviors that could increase students’ stress; potentially identifying partially matched or unmatched applicants, which could lead to bias; and extending the match process time for those applicants.

In addition, members of 12 medical education and student organizations raised other concerns, such as the proposed change not addressing high application numbers, according to the statement. NRMP has reported record numbers of applicants over the past few years, typically with more applicants than available program slots.

“While the testimony gave nod to the positive aspects of the proposal ... there was substantially more concern voiced about the potential negative consequences identified in the public comments,” NRMP President and CEO Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, told this news organization. Some of those issues could not be addressed without further study, so the board decided not to proceed with the proposal, she explained.

The proposal would have separated the Main Residency Match into two phases and replaced the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP), in which unmatched or partially matched applicants apply for unfilled residency positions. Under the proposed change, each phase would have operated the same way, from rank order lists and using a matching algorithm to a pair of Match Days instead of a single day.

The two-phase process would have given students who didn’t match more time to carefully weigh residency programs – they can apply to up to 45 placements as part of SOAP – that will guide their career path for the next few years, PGY-1 intern Asim A., who asked not to be identified further, told this news organization. The alternative is a hasty decision once students learn which residency spots are available, he added. “Applicants would have breathing room to make a more informed decision.”

Asim, who is Canadian, said he is participating in a transitional year in internal medicine in the hopes of being matched into internal medicine or psychiatry. He said Canada’s two-phase match is a “lot less stressful” than the U.S. system.

Meanwhile, students on Reddit’s medical school community also questioned NRMP’s decision.

“A significant majority of those surveyed thought it would be beneficial. But NRMP decides to not go through with it,” one Reddit user wrote. Another posted, “The one thing that could have improved the match and they chose not to do it.”

Others supported the decision to retain a 1-day match.

“I think this was the right call,” Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken medical education blogger, tweeted after learning of NRMP’s decision. Dr. Carmody, a pediatric nephrologist, previously expressed to this news organization misgivings about whether the two-phase match would make it difficult for programs to thoroughly review candidates and vice versa. He was concerned that it would compress the interview season and pressure programs to rapidly review applicants and conduct interviews.

More than 8,000 people responded to the public survey that began in August and ran for a month. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (60%) were students, residents, or fellows. About 25% included faculty, program directors, and staff. Among the survey findings, respondents were equally divided between whether the two-phase match would be modestly advantageous (30%) or significantly advantageous (30%) compared to 20% who viewed it as modestly or significantly disadvantageous.

The NRMP said it would continue engaging with the community through focus groups and other means to improve the match experience and transition to residency.

“It is important to remember that a proposal is just that,” Dr. Lamb told this news orgnization, “an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of an idea or framework ... and to mitigate unwanted consequences determined to be detrimental to learners and programs.”

The NRMP will involve the community in future discussions “to continue to give learners a voice,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare’s recently announced 2023 physician payment rule likely trims doctors’ pay even as it aims to expand patients’ access to behavioral health services, chronic pain management, and hearing screening. The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).

But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.

The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.

That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.

A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.

Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.

“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.

He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
 

Chronic budget battles

Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s  Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.

MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.

A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.

And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.

Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.

In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.

“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
 

Policy changes

But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.

CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.

“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.

CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.

It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.

Other major policy changes include:

Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.

Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.

CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.

CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare’s recently announced 2023 physician payment rule likely trims doctors’ pay even as it aims to expand patients’ access to behavioral health services, chronic pain management, and hearing screening. The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).

But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.

The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.

That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.

A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.

Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.

“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.

He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
 

Chronic budget battles

Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s  Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.

MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.

A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.

And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.

Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.

In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.

“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
 

Policy changes

But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.

CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.

“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.

CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.

It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.

Other major policy changes include:

Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.

Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.

CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.

CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare’s recently announced 2023 physician payment rule likely trims doctors’ pay even as it aims to expand patients’ access to behavioral health services, chronic pain management, and hearing screening. The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).

But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.

The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.

That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.

A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.

Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.

“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.

He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
 

Chronic budget battles

Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s  Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.

MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.

A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.

And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.

Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.

In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.

“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
 

Policy changes

But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.

CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.

“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.

CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.

It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.

Other major policy changes include:

Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.

Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.

CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.

CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Four major professional medical societies in the United States have called for urgent action to create a more sustainable model for digestive health care that decreases the environmental impact of gastroenterology practice, according to a new joint strategic plan published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Hepatology.

The plan outlines numerous strategic goals and objectives across clinical care, education, research, and industry to support sustainable practices. With first author Heiko Pohl, MD, a gastroenterologist and hepatologist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont, and professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., the joint statement includes task force members from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“It is clear that the evolving climate crisis, with its deleterious effects on planetary ecosystems, also poses harm to the health of humankind,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology.

“Climate change affects many social and environmental determinants of health, including water and food security, shelter, physical activity, and accessible health care,” they added. These changes influence gastrointestinal practice (for example, increased risk of obesity and fatty liver disease, disruption of the microbiome, compromised gut immune function).

At the same time, health care delivery contributes to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, they wrote. As a procedure-intensive specialty, digestive health care adds to the health care carbon footprint through single-use supplies and high levels of waste.

“As is the case for the impact of climate change by and on health care systems, there is a vicious cycle whereby climate change negatively impacts individual digestive health, which accelerates specialized health care activity, which further contributes to the climate crisis,” the authors wrote.

The multisociety task force noted the transition to a more sustainable model will be challenging and require major modification of current habits in practice. However, the long-term effects “will promote health, save cost, and ... correspond with a broader shared vision of planetary health,” they wrote.

The strategic plan covers seven domains: clinical settings, education, research, society efforts, intersociety efforts, industry, and advocacy. Each domain has specific initiatives for 2023 to 2027. Years 1 and 2 are conceived as a period of self-assessment and planning, followed by implementation and assessment during years 3-5.

In the plan, clinical settings would assess the carbon footprint and waste within all areas of practice and identify low-carbon and low-waste alternatives, such as immediate, short-term, and long-term solutions. This involves creating a framework for GI practices to develop sustainability metrics and offer affordable testing and treatment alternatives with a favorable environmental impact.

Through education, the societies would raise awareness and share sustainability practices with health care leadership, practitioners, and patients regarding the interactions among climate change, digestive health, and health care services. This would include discussions about the professional and ethical implications of old and new patterns of shared resource utilization.

The societies also support raising and allocating resources for research related to the intersections of climate change, digestive health, and health care, with an emphasis on vulnerable groups. This would encourage the inclusion of environmental considerations in research proposals.

At the GI society level, the groups suggest assessing and monitoring the current environmental impact of society-related activities. This entails identifying and implementing measures that would decrease the carbon footprint and reduce waste, as well as track financial costs and savings and environmental benefits from efforts included in a sustainability model.

At the intersociety level, the U.S. groups would collaborate with national and international GI and hepatology societies to support sustainability efforts and use validated metrics to evaluate their efforts. The multisociety plan has received endorsements from nearly two-dozen groups, including the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation, World Endoscopy Organization, and World Gastroenterology Organisation.

The plan calls for engagement with GI- and hepatology-focused industry and pharmaceutical partners to develop environmentally friendly products, publish information on carbon footprint implications, and promote options for recycling.

Through advocacy efforts, the societies would also identify and incorporate principles of sustainable health care among the goals of relevant political action committees, as well as leverage collaborative advocacy efforts with national and international health care and research agencies, political leaders, and payors.

“We are grateful that several other GI organizations have endorsed our plan, which reflects the importance and timeliness of the opportunity to work together and share best practices to overcome the burden of climate change on digestive health and help mitigate the environmental impact of GI practice,” the authors concluded.

The authors did not declare a funding source for the report. Several of the authors declared financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, serving as a consultant or receiving research funding.

Four major professional medical societies in the United States have called for urgent action to create a more sustainable model for digestive health care that decreases the environmental impact of gastroenterology practice, according to a new joint strategic plan published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Hepatology.

The plan outlines numerous strategic goals and objectives across clinical care, education, research, and industry to support sustainable practices. With first author Heiko Pohl, MD, a gastroenterologist and hepatologist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont, and professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., the joint statement includes task force members from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“It is clear that the evolving climate crisis, with its deleterious effects on planetary ecosystems, also poses harm to the health of humankind,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology.

“Climate change affects many social and environmental determinants of health, including water and food security, shelter, physical activity, and accessible health care,” they added. These changes influence gastrointestinal practice (for example, increased risk of obesity and fatty liver disease, disruption of the microbiome, compromised gut immune function).

At the same time, health care delivery contributes to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, they wrote. As a procedure-intensive specialty, digestive health care adds to the health care carbon footprint through single-use supplies and high levels of waste.

“As is the case for the impact of climate change by and on health care systems, there is a vicious cycle whereby climate change negatively impacts individual digestive health, which accelerates specialized health care activity, which further contributes to the climate crisis,” the authors wrote.

The multisociety task force noted the transition to a more sustainable model will be challenging and require major modification of current habits in practice. However, the long-term effects “will promote health, save cost, and ... correspond with a broader shared vision of planetary health,” they wrote.

The strategic plan covers seven domains: clinical settings, education, research, society efforts, intersociety efforts, industry, and advocacy. Each domain has specific initiatives for 2023 to 2027. Years 1 and 2 are conceived as a period of self-assessment and planning, followed by implementation and assessment during years 3-5.

In the plan, clinical settings would assess the carbon footprint and waste within all areas of practice and identify low-carbon and low-waste alternatives, such as immediate, short-term, and long-term solutions. This involves creating a framework for GI practices to develop sustainability metrics and offer affordable testing and treatment alternatives with a favorable environmental impact.

Through education, the societies would raise awareness and share sustainability practices with health care leadership, practitioners, and patients regarding the interactions among climate change, digestive health, and health care services. This would include discussions about the professional and ethical implications of old and new patterns of shared resource utilization.

The societies also support raising and allocating resources for research related to the intersections of climate change, digestive health, and health care, with an emphasis on vulnerable groups. This would encourage the inclusion of environmental considerations in research proposals.

At the GI society level, the groups suggest assessing and monitoring the current environmental impact of society-related activities. This entails identifying and implementing measures that would decrease the carbon footprint and reduce waste, as well as track financial costs and savings and environmental benefits from efforts included in a sustainability model.

At the intersociety level, the U.S. groups would collaborate with national and international GI and hepatology societies to support sustainability efforts and use validated metrics to evaluate their efforts. The multisociety plan has received endorsements from nearly two-dozen groups, including the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation, World Endoscopy Organization, and World Gastroenterology Organisation.

The plan calls for engagement with GI- and hepatology-focused industry and pharmaceutical partners to develop environmentally friendly products, publish information on carbon footprint implications, and promote options for recycling.

Through advocacy efforts, the societies would also identify and incorporate principles of sustainable health care among the goals of relevant political action committees, as well as leverage collaborative advocacy efforts with national and international health care and research agencies, political leaders, and payors.

“We are grateful that several other GI organizations have endorsed our plan, which reflects the importance and timeliness of the opportunity to work together and share best practices to overcome the burden of climate change on digestive health and help mitigate the environmental impact of GI practice,” the authors concluded.

The authors did not declare a funding source for the report. Several of the authors declared financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, serving as a consultant or receiving research funding.

Four major professional medical societies in the United States have called for urgent action to create a more sustainable model for digestive health care that decreases the environmental impact of gastroenterology practice, according to a new joint strategic plan published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, American Journal of Gastroenterology, and Hepatology.

The plan outlines numerous strategic goals and objectives across clinical care, education, research, and industry to support sustainable practices. With first author Heiko Pohl, MD, a gastroenterologist and hepatologist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont, and professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., the joint statement includes task force members from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“It is clear that the evolving climate crisis, with its deleterious effects on planetary ecosystems, also poses harm to the health of humankind,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology.

“Climate change affects many social and environmental determinants of health, including water and food security, shelter, physical activity, and accessible health care,” they added. These changes influence gastrointestinal practice (for example, increased risk of obesity and fatty liver disease, disruption of the microbiome, compromised gut immune function).

At the same time, health care delivery contributes to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, they wrote. As a procedure-intensive specialty, digestive health care adds to the health care carbon footprint through single-use supplies and high levels of waste.

“As is the case for the impact of climate change by and on health care systems, there is a vicious cycle whereby climate change negatively impacts individual digestive health, which accelerates specialized health care activity, which further contributes to the climate crisis,” the authors wrote.

The multisociety task force noted the transition to a more sustainable model will be challenging and require major modification of current habits in practice. However, the long-term effects “will promote health, save cost, and ... correspond with a broader shared vision of planetary health,” they wrote.

The strategic plan covers seven domains: clinical settings, education, research, society efforts, intersociety efforts, industry, and advocacy. Each domain has specific initiatives for 2023 to 2027. Years 1 and 2 are conceived as a period of self-assessment and planning, followed by implementation and assessment during years 3-5.

In the plan, clinical settings would assess the carbon footprint and waste within all areas of practice and identify low-carbon and low-waste alternatives, such as immediate, short-term, and long-term solutions. This involves creating a framework for GI practices to develop sustainability metrics and offer affordable testing and treatment alternatives with a favorable environmental impact.

Through education, the societies would raise awareness and share sustainability practices with health care leadership, practitioners, and patients regarding the interactions among climate change, digestive health, and health care services. This would include discussions about the professional and ethical implications of old and new patterns of shared resource utilization.

The societies also support raising and allocating resources for research related to the intersections of climate change, digestive health, and health care, with an emphasis on vulnerable groups. This would encourage the inclusion of environmental considerations in research proposals.

At the GI society level, the groups suggest assessing and monitoring the current environmental impact of society-related activities. This entails identifying and implementing measures that would decrease the carbon footprint and reduce waste, as well as track financial costs and savings and environmental benefits from efforts included in a sustainability model.

At the intersociety level, the U.S. groups would collaborate with national and international GI and hepatology societies to support sustainability efforts and use validated metrics to evaluate their efforts. The multisociety plan has received endorsements from nearly two-dozen groups, including the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation, World Endoscopy Organization, and World Gastroenterology Organisation.

The plan calls for engagement with GI- and hepatology-focused industry and pharmaceutical partners to develop environmentally friendly products, publish information on carbon footprint implications, and promote options for recycling.

Through advocacy efforts, the societies would also identify and incorporate principles of sustainable health care among the goals of relevant political action committees, as well as leverage collaborative advocacy efforts with national and international health care and research agencies, political leaders, and payors.

“We are grateful that several other GI organizations have endorsed our plan, which reflects the importance and timeliness of the opportunity to work together and share best practices to overcome the burden of climate change on digestive health and help mitigate the environmental impact of GI practice,” the authors concluded.

The authors did not declare a funding source for the report. Several of the authors declared financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, serving as a consultant or receiving research funding.

When a consumer uses a health plan provider directory to look up a physician, there’s a high probability that the entry for that doctor is incomplete or inaccurate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would like to change that by creating a National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services, which the agency believes would be more valuable to consumers.

In asking for public comments on whether and how it should establish the directory, CMS argues that this data repository would help patients locate physicians and could help with care coordination, health information exchange, and public health data reporting.

However, it’s not clear that such a directory would be any better than current insurance company listings or that people would use it. But a national directory could benefit physician practices by reducing their administrative work, according to observers.

In requesting public comment on the proposed national directory, CMS explains that provider organizations face “redundant and burdensome reporting requirements to multiple databases.” The directory could greatly reduce this challenge by requiring health care organizations to report provider information to a single database. Currently, physician practices have to submit these data to an average of 20 payers each, according to CMS.

“Right now, [physicians are] inundated with requests, and it takes a lot of time to update this stuff,” said David Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa.. “If there were one national repository of this information, that would be a good move.”

CMS envisions the National Directory as a central hub from which payers could obtain the latest provider data, which would be updated through a standardized application programming interface (API). Consequently, the insurers would no longer need to have providers submit this information to them separately.

CMS is soliciting input on what should be included in the directory. It notes that in addition to contact information, insurer directories also include a physicians’ specialties, health plan affiliations, and whether they accept new patients.

CMS’ 60-day public comment period ends Dec. 6. After that, the agency will decide what steps to take if it is decided that CMS has the legal authority to create the directory.
 

Terrible track record

In its annual reviews of health plan directories, CMS found that, from 2017 to 2022, only 47% of provider entries were complete. Only 73% of the providers could be matched to published directories. And only 28% of the provider names, addresses, and specialties in the directories matched those in the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry.

Many of the mistakes in provider directories stem from errors made by practice staff, who have many other duties besides updating directory data. Yet an astonishing amount of time and effort is devoted to this task. A 2019 survey found that physician practices spend $2.76 billion annually on directory maintenance, or nearly $1000 per month per practice, on average.

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, which conducted the survey, estimated that placing all directory data collection on a single platform could save the average practice $4,746 per year. For all practices in the United States, that works out to about $1.1 billion annually, CAQH said.
 

Pros and cons of national directory

For all the money spent on maintaining provider directories, consumers don’t use them very much. According to a 2021 Press Ganey survey, fewer than 5% of consumers seeking a primary care doctor get their information from an insurer or a benefits manager. About half search the internet first, and 24% seek a referral from a physician.

A national provider directory would be useful only if it were done right, Mr. Zetter said. Citing the inaccuracy and incompleteness of health plan directories, he said it was likely that a national directory would have similar problems. Data entered by practice staff would have to be automatically validated, perhaps through use of some kind of AI algorithm.
 

Effect on coordination of care

Mr. Zetter doubts the directory could improve care coordination, because primary care doctors usually refer patients to specialists they already know.

But Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that a national directory could improve communications among providers when patients select specialists outside of their primary care physician’s referral network.

“Especially if it’s not an established referral relationship, that’s where a national directory would be helpful, not only to locate the physicians but also to understand their preferences in how they’d like to receive information,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Adler-Milstein worries less than Mr. Zetter does about the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data in the directory. She pointed out that the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which includes the NPI registry, has done a good job of validating provider name, address, and specialty information.

Dr. Adler-Milstein is more concerned about whether the proposed directory would address physician preferences as to how they wish to receive information. For example, while some physicians may prefer to be contacted directly, others may prefer or are required to communicate through their practices or health systems.
 

Efficiency in data exchange

The API used by the proposed directory would be based on the Fast Health Interoperability Resources standard that all electronic health record vendors must now include in their products. That raises the question of whether communications using contact information from the directory would be sent through a secure email system or through integrated EHR systems, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

“I’m not sure whether the directory could support that [integration],” she said. “If it focuses on the concept of secure email exchange, that’s a relatively inefficient way of doing it,” because providers want clinical messages to pop up in their EHR workflow rather than their inboxes.

Nevertheless, Dr. Milstein-Adler added, the directory “would clearly take a lot of today’s manual work out of the system. I think organizations like UCSF would be very motivated to support the directory, knowing that people were going to a single source to find the updated information, including preferences in how we’d like people to communicate with us. There would be a lot of efficiency reasons for organizations to use this national directory.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When a consumer uses a health plan provider directory to look up a physician, there’s a high probability that the entry for that doctor is incomplete or inaccurate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would like to change that by creating a National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services, which the agency believes would be more valuable to consumers.

In asking for public comments on whether and how it should establish the directory, CMS argues that this data repository would help patients locate physicians and could help with care coordination, health information exchange, and public health data reporting.

However, it’s not clear that such a directory would be any better than current insurance company listings or that people would use it. But a national directory could benefit physician practices by reducing their administrative work, according to observers.

In requesting public comment on the proposed national directory, CMS explains that provider organizations face “redundant and burdensome reporting requirements to multiple databases.” The directory could greatly reduce this challenge by requiring health care organizations to report provider information to a single database. Currently, physician practices have to submit these data to an average of 20 payers each, according to CMS.

“Right now, [physicians are] inundated with requests, and it takes a lot of time to update this stuff,” said David Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa.. “If there were one national repository of this information, that would be a good move.”

CMS envisions the National Directory as a central hub from which payers could obtain the latest provider data, which would be updated through a standardized application programming interface (API). Consequently, the insurers would no longer need to have providers submit this information to them separately.

CMS is soliciting input on what should be included in the directory. It notes that in addition to contact information, insurer directories also include a physicians’ specialties, health plan affiliations, and whether they accept new patients.

CMS’ 60-day public comment period ends Dec. 6. After that, the agency will decide what steps to take if it is decided that CMS has the legal authority to create the directory.
 

Terrible track record

In its annual reviews of health plan directories, CMS found that, from 2017 to 2022, only 47% of provider entries were complete. Only 73% of the providers could be matched to published directories. And only 28% of the provider names, addresses, and specialties in the directories matched those in the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry.

Many of the mistakes in provider directories stem from errors made by practice staff, who have many other duties besides updating directory data. Yet an astonishing amount of time and effort is devoted to this task. A 2019 survey found that physician practices spend $2.76 billion annually on directory maintenance, or nearly $1000 per month per practice, on average.

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, which conducted the survey, estimated that placing all directory data collection on a single platform could save the average practice $4,746 per year. For all practices in the United States, that works out to about $1.1 billion annually, CAQH said.
 

Pros and cons of national directory

For all the money spent on maintaining provider directories, consumers don’t use them very much. According to a 2021 Press Ganey survey, fewer than 5% of consumers seeking a primary care doctor get their information from an insurer or a benefits manager. About half search the internet first, and 24% seek a referral from a physician.

A national provider directory would be useful only if it were done right, Mr. Zetter said. Citing the inaccuracy and incompleteness of health plan directories, he said it was likely that a national directory would have similar problems. Data entered by practice staff would have to be automatically validated, perhaps through use of some kind of AI algorithm.
 

Effect on coordination of care

Mr. Zetter doubts the directory could improve care coordination, because primary care doctors usually refer patients to specialists they already know.

But Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that a national directory could improve communications among providers when patients select specialists outside of their primary care physician’s referral network.

“Especially if it’s not an established referral relationship, that’s where a national directory would be helpful, not only to locate the physicians but also to understand their preferences in how they’d like to receive information,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Adler-Milstein worries less than Mr. Zetter does about the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data in the directory. She pointed out that the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which includes the NPI registry, has done a good job of validating provider name, address, and specialty information.

Dr. Adler-Milstein is more concerned about whether the proposed directory would address physician preferences as to how they wish to receive information. For example, while some physicians may prefer to be contacted directly, others may prefer or are required to communicate through their practices or health systems.
 

Efficiency in data exchange

The API used by the proposed directory would be based on the Fast Health Interoperability Resources standard that all electronic health record vendors must now include in their products. That raises the question of whether communications using contact information from the directory would be sent through a secure email system or through integrated EHR systems, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

“I’m not sure whether the directory could support that [integration],” she said. “If it focuses on the concept of secure email exchange, that’s a relatively inefficient way of doing it,” because providers want clinical messages to pop up in their EHR workflow rather than their inboxes.

Nevertheless, Dr. Milstein-Adler added, the directory “would clearly take a lot of today’s manual work out of the system. I think organizations like UCSF would be very motivated to support the directory, knowing that people were going to a single source to find the updated information, including preferences in how we’d like people to communicate with us. There would be a lot of efficiency reasons for organizations to use this national directory.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When a consumer uses a health plan provider directory to look up a physician, there’s a high probability that the entry for that doctor is incomplete or inaccurate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would like to change that by creating a National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services, which the agency believes would be more valuable to consumers.

In asking for public comments on whether and how it should establish the directory, CMS argues that this data repository would help patients locate physicians and could help with care coordination, health information exchange, and public health data reporting.

However, it’s not clear that such a directory would be any better than current insurance company listings or that people would use it. But a national directory could benefit physician practices by reducing their administrative work, according to observers.

In requesting public comment on the proposed national directory, CMS explains that provider organizations face “redundant and burdensome reporting requirements to multiple databases.” The directory could greatly reduce this challenge by requiring health care organizations to report provider information to a single database. Currently, physician practices have to submit these data to an average of 20 payers each, according to CMS.

“Right now, [physicians are] inundated with requests, and it takes a lot of time to update this stuff,” said David Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa.. “If there were one national repository of this information, that would be a good move.”

CMS envisions the National Directory as a central hub from which payers could obtain the latest provider data, which would be updated through a standardized application programming interface (API). Consequently, the insurers would no longer need to have providers submit this information to them separately.

CMS is soliciting input on what should be included in the directory. It notes that in addition to contact information, insurer directories also include a physicians’ specialties, health plan affiliations, and whether they accept new patients.

CMS’ 60-day public comment period ends Dec. 6. After that, the agency will decide what steps to take if it is decided that CMS has the legal authority to create the directory.
 

Terrible track record

In its annual reviews of health plan directories, CMS found that, from 2017 to 2022, only 47% of provider entries were complete. Only 73% of the providers could be matched to published directories. And only 28% of the provider names, addresses, and specialties in the directories matched those in the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry.

Many of the mistakes in provider directories stem from errors made by practice staff, who have many other duties besides updating directory data. Yet an astonishing amount of time and effort is devoted to this task. A 2019 survey found that physician practices spend $2.76 billion annually on directory maintenance, or nearly $1000 per month per practice, on average.

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, which conducted the survey, estimated that placing all directory data collection on a single platform could save the average practice $4,746 per year. For all practices in the United States, that works out to about $1.1 billion annually, CAQH said.
 

Pros and cons of national directory

For all the money spent on maintaining provider directories, consumers don’t use them very much. According to a 2021 Press Ganey survey, fewer than 5% of consumers seeking a primary care doctor get their information from an insurer or a benefits manager. About half search the internet first, and 24% seek a referral from a physician.

A national provider directory would be useful only if it were done right, Mr. Zetter said. Citing the inaccuracy and incompleteness of health plan directories, he said it was likely that a national directory would have similar problems. Data entered by practice staff would have to be automatically validated, perhaps through use of some kind of AI algorithm.
 

Effect on coordination of care

Mr. Zetter doubts the directory could improve care coordination, because primary care doctors usually refer patients to specialists they already know.

But Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that a national directory could improve communications among providers when patients select specialists outside of their primary care physician’s referral network.

“Especially if it’s not an established referral relationship, that’s where a national directory would be helpful, not only to locate the physicians but also to understand their preferences in how they’d like to receive information,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Adler-Milstein worries less than Mr. Zetter does about the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data in the directory. She pointed out that the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which includes the NPI registry, has done a good job of validating provider name, address, and specialty information.

Dr. Adler-Milstein is more concerned about whether the proposed directory would address physician preferences as to how they wish to receive information. For example, while some physicians may prefer to be contacted directly, others may prefer or are required to communicate through their practices or health systems.
 

Efficiency in data exchange

The API used by the proposed directory would be based on the Fast Health Interoperability Resources standard that all electronic health record vendors must now include in their products. That raises the question of whether communications using contact information from the directory would be sent through a secure email system or through integrated EHR systems, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

“I’m not sure whether the directory could support that [integration],” she said. “If it focuses on the concept of secure email exchange, that’s a relatively inefficient way of doing it,” because providers want clinical messages to pop up in their EHR workflow rather than their inboxes.

Nevertheless, Dr. Milstein-Adler added, the directory “would clearly take a lot of today’s manual work out of the system. I think organizations like UCSF would be very motivated to support the directory, knowing that people were going to a single source to find the updated information, including preferences in how we’d like people to communicate with us. There would be a lot of efficiency reasons for organizations to use this national directory.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of Ebola, COVID-19, and even Legionnaires, technicians and other staff working behind the scenes to ensure provider and patient safety continue to face a long-recognized but under addressed challenge: splashes and airborne droplets.

Granted, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) standards, industry standards, and professional guidelines are all in place to prevent unintentional exposure to pathogens. However, findings from a newly published study in the American Journal of Infection Control suggest they fall short.

In the study, researchers found that simulated manual cleaning of medical devices generated a drenching splash throughout the process with droplet dispersal exceeding 7 feet (2.1 meters).

“The guidelines say that droplets stop at 3 or 4 feet, and they don’t,” Cori L. Ofstead, MSPH, lead author and president/CEO of Ofstead & Associates, Bloomington, Minn., told this news organization. “That’s the problem with having standards and guidelines that are not based on relevant evidence, [which] in this case, is a single study that was done in an intensive care area where they had an infection outbreak.”

Ms. Ofstead was referring to a report in the journal Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, detailing a Canadian investigation involving a multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa outbreak in an ICU. The report implicated the faucets over the hand hygiene sinks, with fluorescent dye showing droplet dispersal roughly 3 feet away from the sinks.

“Somehow it [the 3-feet rule] got implemented in guidelines in sterile processing decontamination areas, which are not the same as hand hygiene,’’ Ms. Ofstead explained.

With a goal of providing more current evidence on droplet generation and dispersal, as well as personal protection equipment (PPE) exposure/effectiveness, she and her colleagues simulated manual cleaning of a decommissioned colonoscope and transvaginal ultrasound probe, using for the study location a new academic sterile processing unit.

To detect droplet generation and dispersal as well as splash following common technician activities (for example, colonoscope brushing, scrubbing, rinsing and transport to an automated endoscope reprocessor [AER] for sterilization), the researchers affixed blue moisture-detection paper to environmental surfaces, on carts positioned 4 feet (1.2 meters) from the sink (to simulate observers), and along a 15-foot pathway between the sink and AER.

They observed droplets everywhere.

Technician activities such as running the faucet and rinsing the probe under running water generated substantial splashing overall. Instrument rinsing in particular produced small and large droplets and confluent puddles of water around the sink and in the broad area surrounding the workspace. Droplets were also dispersed on the floor 7.25 feet (2.2 meters) away and along the entire 15-foot path from the sink to the AER.

At the sink, the technician risked drenching exposure from head to toe during most activities, and even observers positioned 3-4 feet away were found to have droplets on their gowns. In addition, saturated shoe covers reportedly tracked moisture away from the sink to the unit door – a distance of 13 feet (4 meters) – and 2 feet (0.6 meters) farther out into the PPE foyer for donning and doffing.

Although PPE gowns effectively repelled moisture during cleaning of a single device, Ms. Ofstead emphasized that technicians typically handle up to 10 instruments during a normal, 2-hour shift, further increasing exposure risk with each subsequent cleaning.

However, perhaps one of the most surprising findings was that despite an optimal unit design, including physical separation of clean and dirty activities and pressurized air flow to protect workers, droplets were still broadly dispersed.

Current efforts, however well-intentioned, might not be offering the degree of protection (and consideration) that sterile processing technicians need.

“The study was conducted in a new sterile processing area that had an extra excellent kind of distancing and three separate rooms, something that I think most of our hospitals are working toward,” Stella Hines, MD, associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, explained. Dr. Hines was not directly involved in the study.

“But it also really kind of highlighted what’s happening to workers potentially,” she added. “For example, we want to know if that spray or splatter has a live microbe it in that could cause a problem or ... in a highly wet environment, if that water has some kind of chemical in it that could pose an occupational hazard to the worker based on skin or mucous membrane exposure.”

Ms. Ofstead agreed. “We need to be thinking about the exposure of critically important workers and the environment in an era where we are worried about aerosol-generating procedures and superbugs,” she explained.

Dr. Hines and Ms. Ofstead also noted that the majority of staff involved in front-line patient care have never actually ventured into the sterile processing units nor do they recognize the risks that technicians working in these units face on a daily, or even hourly, basis.

“The people who run these operations are very well trained and knowledgeable. I think that it would be helpful for them to know that they’re appreciated and for the people upstairs on the front lines using the equipment to see what goes on downstairs and all of the painstaking steps that need to be in place for the equipment to come out of sterile processing and be ready to go,” said Dr. Hines.

In the meantime, hospital leaders need to address the challenges and danger posed by migrating infectious droplets, especially for workers involved in processes that stir them up in the first place – workers who by the end of their shifts are unavoidably drenched with infectious blood and tissue secretions.

“I think that it’s going to take a much bigger kind of worldview from hospital leadership,” Dr. Hines said.

The study was supported in part by a grant from Healthmark Industries. Ms. Ofstead reports research grants or consulting fees through her organization with 3M Company, Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cleanis, Fortive/Advanced Sterilization Products, Healthmark Industries, Pentax, and Steris/Cantel/Medviators. Dr. Hines reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of Ebola, COVID-19, and even Legionnaires, technicians and other staff working behind the scenes to ensure provider and patient safety continue to face a long-recognized but under addressed challenge: splashes and airborne droplets.

Granted, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) standards, industry standards, and professional guidelines are all in place to prevent unintentional exposure to pathogens. However, findings from a newly published study in the American Journal of Infection Control suggest they fall short.

In the study, researchers found that simulated manual cleaning of medical devices generated a drenching splash throughout the process with droplet dispersal exceeding 7 feet (2.1 meters).

“The guidelines say that droplets stop at 3 or 4 feet, and they don’t,” Cori L. Ofstead, MSPH, lead author and president/CEO of Ofstead & Associates, Bloomington, Minn., told this news organization. “That’s the problem with having standards and guidelines that are not based on relevant evidence, [which] in this case, is a single study that was done in an intensive care area where they had an infection outbreak.”

Ms. Ofstead was referring to a report in the journal Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, detailing a Canadian investigation involving a multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa outbreak in an ICU. The report implicated the faucets over the hand hygiene sinks, with fluorescent dye showing droplet dispersal roughly 3 feet away from the sinks.

“Somehow it [the 3-feet rule] got implemented in guidelines in sterile processing decontamination areas, which are not the same as hand hygiene,’’ Ms. Ofstead explained.

With a goal of providing more current evidence on droplet generation and dispersal, as well as personal protection equipment (PPE) exposure/effectiveness, she and her colleagues simulated manual cleaning of a decommissioned colonoscope and transvaginal ultrasound probe, using for the study location a new academic sterile processing unit.

To detect droplet generation and dispersal as well as splash following common technician activities (for example, colonoscope brushing, scrubbing, rinsing and transport to an automated endoscope reprocessor [AER] for sterilization), the researchers affixed blue moisture-detection paper to environmental surfaces, on carts positioned 4 feet (1.2 meters) from the sink (to simulate observers), and along a 15-foot pathway between the sink and AER.

They observed droplets everywhere.

Technician activities such as running the faucet and rinsing the probe under running water generated substantial splashing overall. Instrument rinsing in particular produced small and large droplets and confluent puddles of water around the sink and in the broad area surrounding the workspace. Droplets were also dispersed on the floor 7.25 feet (2.2 meters) away and along the entire 15-foot path from the sink to the AER.

At the sink, the technician risked drenching exposure from head to toe during most activities, and even observers positioned 3-4 feet away were found to have droplets on their gowns. In addition, saturated shoe covers reportedly tracked moisture away from the sink to the unit door – a distance of 13 feet (4 meters) – and 2 feet (0.6 meters) farther out into the PPE foyer for donning and doffing.

Although PPE gowns effectively repelled moisture during cleaning of a single device, Ms. Ofstead emphasized that technicians typically handle up to 10 instruments during a normal, 2-hour shift, further increasing exposure risk with each subsequent cleaning.

However, perhaps one of the most surprising findings was that despite an optimal unit design, including physical separation of clean and dirty activities and pressurized air flow to protect workers, droplets were still broadly dispersed.

Current efforts, however well-intentioned, might not be offering the degree of protection (and consideration) that sterile processing technicians need.

“The study was conducted in a new sterile processing area that had an extra excellent kind of distancing and three separate rooms, something that I think most of our hospitals are working toward,” Stella Hines, MD, associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, explained. Dr. Hines was not directly involved in the study.

“But it also really kind of highlighted what’s happening to workers potentially,” she added. “For example, we want to know if that spray or splatter has a live microbe it in that could cause a problem or ... in a highly wet environment, if that water has some kind of chemical in it that could pose an occupational hazard to the worker based on skin or mucous membrane exposure.”

Ms. Ofstead agreed. “We need to be thinking about the exposure of critically important workers and the environment in an era where we are worried about aerosol-generating procedures and superbugs,” she explained.

Dr. Hines and Ms. Ofstead also noted that the majority of staff involved in front-line patient care have never actually ventured into the sterile processing units nor do they recognize the risks that technicians working in these units face on a daily, or even hourly, basis.

“The people who run these operations are very well trained and knowledgeable. I think that it would be helpful for them to know that they’re appreciated and for the people upstairs on the front lines using the equipment to see what goes on downstairs and all of the painstaking steps that need to be in place for the equipment to come out of sterile processing and be ready to go,” said Dr. Hines.

In the meantime, hospital leaders need to address the challenges and danger posed by migrating infectious droplets, especially for workers involved in processes that stir them up in the first place – workers who by the end of their shifts are unavoidably drenched with infectious blood and tissue secretions.

“I think that it’s going to take a much bigger kind of worldview from hospital leadership,” Dr. Hines said.

The study was supported in part by a grant from Healthmark Industries. Ms. Ofstead reports research grants or consulting fees through her organization with 3M Company, Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cleanis, Fortive/Advanced Sterilization Products, Healthmark Industries, Pentax, and Steris/Cantel/Medviators. Dr. Hines reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of Ebola, COVID-19, and even Legionnaires, technicians and other staff working behind the scenes to ensure provider and patient safety continue to face a long-recognized but under addressed challenge: splashes and airborne droplets.

Granted, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) standards, industry standards, and professional guidelines are all in place to prevent unintentional exposure to pathogens. However, findings from a newly published study in the American Journal of Infection Control suggest they fall short.

In the study, researchers found that simulated manual cleaning of medical devices generated a drenching splash throughout the process with droplet dispersal exceeding 7 feet (2.1 meters).

“The guidelines say that droplets stop at 3 or 4 feet, and they don’t,” Cori L. Ofstead, MSPH, lead author and president/CEO of Ofstead & Associates, Bloomington, Minn., told this news organization. “That’s the problem with having standards and guidelines that are not based on relevant evidence, [which] in this case, is a single study that was done in an intensive care area where they had an infection outbreak.”

Ms. Ofstead was referring to a report in the journal Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, detailing a Canadian investigation involving a multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa outbreak in an ICU. The report implicated the faucets over the hand hygiene sinks, with fluorescent dye showing droplet dispersal roughly 3 feet away from the sinks.

“Somehow it [the 3-feet rule] got implemented in guidelines in sterile processing decontamination areas, which are not the same as hand hygiene,’’ Ms. Ofstead explained.

With a goal of providing more current evidence on droplet generation and dispersal, as well as personal protection equipment (PPE) exposure/effectiveness, she and her colleagues simulated manual cleaning of a decommissioned colonoscope and transvaginal ultrasound probe, using for the study location a new academic sterile processing unit.

To detect droplet generation and dispersal as well as splash following common technician activities (for example, colonoscope brushing, scrubbing, rinsing and transport to an automated endoscope reprocessor [AER] for sterilization), the researchers affixed blue moisture-detection paper to environmental surfaces, on carts positioned 4 feet (1.2 meters) from the sink (to simulate observers), and along a 15-foot pathway between the sink and AER.

They observed droplets everywhere.

Technician activities such as running the faucet and rinsing the probe under running water generated substantial splashing overall. Instrument rinsing in particular produced small and large droplets and confluent puddles of water around the sink and in the broad area surrounding the workspace. Droplets were also dispersed on the floor 7.25 feet (2.2 meters) away and along the entire 15-foot path from the sink to the AER.

At the sink, the technician risked drenching exposure from head to toe during most activities, and even observers positioned 3-4 feet away were found to have droplets on their gowns. In addition, saturated shoe covers reportedly tracked moisture away from the sink to the unit door – a distance of 13 feet (4 meters) – and 2 feet (0.6 meters) farther out into the PPE foyer for donning and doffing.

Although PPE gowns effectively repelled moisture during cleaning of a single device, Ms. Ofstead emphasized that technicians typically handle up to 10 instruments during a normal, 2-hour shift, further increasing exposure risk with each subsequent cleaning.

However, perhaps one of the most surprising findings was that despite an optimal unit design, including physical separation of clean and dirty activities and pressurized air flow to protect workers, droplets were still broadly dispersed.

Current efforts, however well-intentioned, might not be offering the degree of protection (and consideration) that sterile processing technicians need.

“The study was conducted in a new sterile processing area that had an extra excellent kind of distancing and three separate rooms, something that I think most of our hospitals are working toward,” Stella Hines, MD, associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, explained. Dr. Hines was not directly involved in the study.

“But it also really kind of highlighted what’s happening to workers potentially,” she added. “For example, we want to know if that spray or splatter has a live microbe it in that could cause a problem or ... in a highly wet environment, if that water has some kind of chemical in it that could pose an occupational hazard to the worker based on skin or mucous membrane exposure.”

Ms. Ofstead agreed. “We need to be thinking about the exposure of critically important workers and the environment in an era where we are worried about aerosol-generating procedures and superbugs,” she explained.

Dr. Hines and Ms. Ofstead also noted that the majority of staff involved in front-line patient care have never actually ventured into the sterile processing units nor do they recognize the risks that technicians working in these units face on a daily, or even hourly, basis.

“The people who run these operations are very well trained and knowledgeable. I think that it would be helpful for them to know that they’re appreciated and for the people upstairs on the front lines using the equipment to see what goes on downstairs and all of the painstaking steps that need to be in place for the equipment to come out of sterile processing and be ready to go,” said Dr. Hines.

In the meantime, hospital leaders need to address the challenges and danger posed by migrating infectious droplets, especially for workers involved in processes that stir them up in the first place – workers who by the end of their shifts are unavoidably drenched with infectious blood and tissue secretions.

“I think that it’s going to take a much bigger kind of worldview from hospital leadership,” Dr. Hines said.

The study was supported in part by a grant from Healthmark Industries. Ms. Ofstead reports research grants or consulting fees through her organization with 3M Company, Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cleanis, Fortive/Advanced Sterilization Products, Healthmark Industries, Pentax, and Steris/Cantel/Medviators. Dr. Hines reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Josie Tenore, MD, and Paul Hinds were introduced by a mutual friend in 2017 and hadn’t been going out long when she laid down the law: He had to get a physical.

“I don’t date people who don’t take care of their health,” said Dr. Tenore, who practices cosmetic dermatology and functional medicine in suburban Chicago.

One of Mr. Hinds’ blood tests that summer came back with an alarming result: His prostate-specific antigen (PSA), level was very high. A biopsy confirmed he had advanced prostate cancer.

There aren’t a lot of comfortable alternatives for treating prostate cancer, which generally progresses as long as testosterone levels remain high. Marijuana appears to lower testosterone levels, so after his diagnosis, he dosed a liquid form of cannabis for several weeks. That cut his PSA in half, but Mr. Hinds, a cybersecurity expert who likes yoga and bicycling, “was stoned out of his mind and couldn’t function,” Dr. Tenore recalled.

With Dr. Tenore guiding his decisions, Mr. Hinds next tried high-frequency ultrasound treatment, but it failed. And in the summer of 2019 doctors removed his prostate gland. Still, the PSA levels climbed again, and doctors assessed that the cancer had metastasized. The only alternative was to drastically lower Mr. Hinds’ testosterone levels – either via surgery or drugs that block all testosterone. In May 2021, he got his first intramuscular shot of Lupron Depot, a brand name for leuprolide, designed to suppress the prostate gland’s release of the hormone for 3 months. That August, he got his second shot.

And then the bills came.

The patient: Paul Hinds, now 60, is covered by United Healthcare through a COBRA plan from his former employer.

Medical service: Two 3-month Lupron Depot injections for metastatic prostate cancer.

Service provider: University of Chicago Medicine, a 900-physician nonprofit system that includes an 811-bed medical center, a suburban hospital, the Pritzker School of Medicine, and outpatient clinics and physician offices throughout the Chicago area.

Total bill: $73,812 for the two shots ($35,414 for the first, $38,398 for the second), including lab work and physician charges. United Healthcare’s negotiated rate for the two shots plus associated fees was $27,568, of which the insurer paid $19,567. After Mr. Hinds haggled with the hospital and insurer for more than a year, his share of the bills was determined to be nearly $7,000.

What gives: The first issue is unrelenting price increases on old drugs that have remained branded as manufacturers find ways to extend patents for decades and maintain sales through marketing.

Though Lupron was invented in 1973, its manufacturer got patent extensions in 1989 by offering a slow-release version. Drugmakers commonly use this tactic to extend their exclusive rights to sell a product.

The development of Lupron Depot as an intramuscular shot that suppressed testosterone for months at a time improved patient compliance and also enabled its maker, Abbott Laboratories, and its Japanese partner, Takeda, to extend their patents on the drug into the 2000s, said Gerald Weisberg, MD, a former Abbott scientist who has been critical of the company’s pricing policies.

In subsequent years, Abbott and Takeda, in a joint venture called TAP Pharmaceuticals, steadily marked up the price of their slow-release product. In 2000, the average wholesale U.S. price for a 3-month shot was $1,245; currently that figure is $5,866. (It is manufactured in the United States by AbbVie now.)

In the United Kingdom, where health care is generally free and Takeda sells the drug under the name Prostap, all physicians can purchase a 3-month dose for about $260.

It’s likely that Chicago Medicine, where Mr. Hinds got his shots, paid something close to the British price. That’s because the health system’s hospital on Chicago’s South Side participates in a federal program called 340B, which allows hospitals that serve low-income populations to purchase drugs at deep discounts.

Lupron Depot is given as a simple injection into the muscle. It takes minutes for a nurse or doctor to administer. Yet hospital systems like Chicago Medicine can and typically do charge lavishly for such services, to enhance revenue, said Morgan Henderson, principal data scientist at the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. Chicago Medicine declined to say what it paid for the drug.

While U.S. drugmakers can price their drugs however they please, TAP has gotten into trouble for its Lupron sales policies in the past. In 2001, after a Justice Department probe, it paid an $875 million settlement for illegally stimulating sales by giving urologists free and discounted vials of the drug while enabling them to charge Medicare full price.

Since then, many other drugs aimed at lowering testosterone levels have entered the market, including a pill, relugolix (Orgovyx). So why wouldn’t a patient use them?

Lupron Depot is long acting, is easy to prepare and store, and employs a small needle, which some patients prefer, said Brian McNeil, MD, chief of urology at University Hospital of Brooklyn. Orgovyx is convenient, but “a patient has to be very compliant. They have to take it every day around the same time,” he said. “Some people just forget.”

But there is another important factor that may well explain Lupron Depot’s ongoing popularity among medical providers: Doctors and hospitals can earn tens of thousands of dollars each visit by marking up its price and administration fees – as they did with Mr. Hinds. If they merely write a prescription for a drug that can be taken at home, they earn nothing.

Asked about this high patient charge and the possibility of using alternatives, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo said payment was “appropriately based on the hospital’s contract and the member’s benefit plan,” adding that the insurer encourages customers to shop around for the best quality and price.

Resolution: In addition to leaving Mr. Hinds listless, the Lupron Depot shots were, literally, a pain in the rear end. “Each time he was miserable for 2 weeks,” Dr. Tenore said. After looking over his first bill for the Lupron shot, Dr. Tenore told Mr. Hinds he should ask his doctor whether there was a less expensive drug that was easier to take.

After the second shot, in August 2021, a pharmacist told him he could instead receive the pill. His doctor prescribed Mr. Hinds 3 months’ worth of Orgovyx last November, for which he paid $216 and the insurer paid over $6,000. The drug’s list price is about $2,700 a month. There is evidence that Orgovyx works a little better than leuprolide.

Orgovyx was a “no-brainer,” Mr. Hinds said. “Why would you want a sore ass for two weeks when you can take a pill that kicks in sooner, functions the same way, and clears your body of testosterone faster?”

While Orgovyx is increasingly used for prostate cancer, Lupron and other injections usually remain the standard of care, hospital spokesperson Ashley Heher said. Clinicians “work with patients to determine what treatments are the most medically effective and, when necessary, to find reasonable alternatives that may be less financially burdensome due to insurance coverage limitations.”

Mr. Hinds was baffled by the size of the charges. During months of phone calls and emails, the hospital reversed and then reapplied part of the charge, and then in July agreed to a $666.34 monthly payment plan. After Hinds had made two payments, however, the hospital announced Aug. 29 it was canceling the agreement and sending the remainder of his bill to a collection agency. Two weeks later, the hospital reinstated the payment plan – after KHN asked about the cancellation.

As for Mr. Hinds, he remains active, though his bike rides have been shortened from 50 or 60 miles to about 30, he said.

He’s grateful to have Dr. Tenore as a free consultant and empathizes with those who lack a knowledgeable guide through their disease and health care’s financial maze.

“I’ve got Dr. Josie as an advocate who knows the system,” Mr. Hinds said.

The takeaway: First tip: If you are prescribed an infusion or injection, ask your physician if there are cheaper oral medications to treat your condition. Also, many drugs that are given by injection – ones that are given “subcutaneously,” rather than into a muscle – can be administered by a patient at home, avoiding hefty administration fees. Drugs like Dupixent for eczema fall into this category.

Keep in mind that where you get treatment could make a big difference in your charges: A study found that leading U.S. cancer centers charge enormous markups to private insurers for drug injections or infusions. Another study found that hospital systems charge an average of 86% more than private clinics for cancer drug infusions. And the percentage of cancer infusions done in hospital-operated clinics increased from 6% in 2004 to 43% in 2014, and has grown since.

Under a law that took effect in 2021, hospitals are required to list their charges, though they currently do so in a way that is not user friendly. But it’s worth taking a look at the price list – the hospital chargemaster – to try to decipher the pricing and markup for your medicine. If you’re about to get an injection, infusion, or procedure done in a hospital system, ask ahead of time for an estimate of what you will owe.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Josie Tenore, MD, and Paul Hinds were introduced by a mutual friend in 2017 and hadn’t been going out long when she laid down the law: He had to get a physical.

“I don’t date people who don’t take care of their health,” said Dr. Tenore, who practices cosmetic dermatology and functional medicine in suburban Chicago.

One of Mr. Hinds’ blood tests that summer came back with an alarming result: His prostate-specific antigen (PSA), level was very high. A biopsy confirmed he had advanced prostate cancer.

There aren’t a lot of comfortable alternatives for treating prostate cancer, which generally progresses as long as testosterone levels remain high. Marijuana appears to lower testosterone levels, so after his diagnosis, he dosed a liquid form of cannabis for several weeks. That cut his PSA in half, but Mr. Hinds, a cybersecurity expert who likes yoga and bicycling, “was stoned out of his mind and couldn’t function,” Dr. Tenore recalled.

With Dr. Tenore guiding his decisions, Mr. Hinds next tried high-frequency ultrasound treatment, but it failed. And in the summer of 2019 doctors removed his prostate gland. Still, the PSA levels climbed again, and doctors assessed that the cancer had metastasized. The only alternative was to drastically lower Mr. Hinds’ testosterone levels – either via surgery or drugs that block all testosterone. In May 2021, he got his first intramuscular shot of Lupron Depot, a brand name for leuprolide, designed to suppress the prostate gland’s release of the hormone for 3 months. That August, he got his second shot.

And then the bills came.

The patient: Paul Hinds, now 60, is covered by United Healthcare through a COBRA plan from his former employer.

Medical service: Two 3-month Lupron Depot injections for metastatic prostate cancer.

Service provider: University of Chicago Medicine, a 900-physician nonprofit system that includes an 811-bed medical center, a suburban hospital, the Pritzker School of Medicine, and outpatient clinics and physician offices throughout the Chicago area.

Total bill: $73,812 for the two shots ($35,414 for the first, $38,398 for the second), including lab work and physician charges. United Healthcare’s negotiated rate for the two shots plus associated fees was $27,568, of which the insurer paid $19,567. After Mr. Hinds haggled with the hospital and insurer for more than a year, his share of the bills was determined to be nearly $7,000.

What gives: The first issue is unrelenting price increases on old drugs that have remained branded as manufacturers find ways to extend patents for decades and maintain sales through marketing.

Though Lupron was invented in 1973, its manufacturer got patent extensions in 1989 by offering a slow-release version. Drugmakers commonly use this tactic to extend their exclusive rights to sell a product.

The development of Lupron Depot as an intramuscular shot that suppressed testosterone for months at a time improved patient compliance and also enabled its maker, Abbott Laboratories, and its Japanese partner, Takeda, to extend their patents on the drug into the 2000s, said Gerald Weisberg, MD, a former Abbott scientist who has been critical of the company’s pricing policies.

In subsequent years, Abbott and Takeda, in a joint venture called TAP Pharmaceuticals, steadily marked up the price of their slow-release product. In 2000, the average wholesale U.S. price for a 3-month shot was $1,245; currently that figure is $5,866. (It is manufactured in the United States by AbbVie now.)

In the United Kingdom, where health care is generally free and Takeda sells the drug under the name Prostap, all physicians can purchase a 3-month dose for about $260.

It’s likely that Chicago Medicine, where Mr. Hinds got his shots, paid something close to the British price. That’s because the health system’s hospital on Chicago’s South Side participates in a federal program called 340B, which allows hospitals that serve low-income populations to purchase drugs at deep discounts.

Lupron Depot is given as a simple injection into the muscle. It takes minutes for a nurse or doctor to administer. Yet hospital systems like Chicago Medicine can and typically do charge lavishly for such services, to enhance revenue, said Morgan Henderson, principal data scientist at the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. Chicago Medicine declined to say what it paid for the drug.

While U.S. drugmakers can price their drugs however they please, TAP has gotten into trouble for its Lupron sales policies in the past. In 2001, after a Justice Department probe, it paid an $875 million settlement for illegally stimulating sales by giving urologists free and discounted vials of the drug while enabling them to charge Medicare full price.

Since then, many other drugs aimed at lowering testosterone levels have entered the market, including a pill, relugolix (Orgovyx). So why wouldn’t a patient use them?

Lupron Depot is long acting, is easy to prepare and store, and employs a small needle, which some patients prefer, said Brian McNeil, MD, chief of urology at University Hospital of Brooklyn. Orgovyx is convenient, but “a patient has to be very compliant. They have to take it every day around the same time,” he said. “Some people just forget.”

But there is another important factor that may well explain Lupron Depot’s ongoing popularity among medical providers: Doctors and hospitals can earn tens of thousands of dollars each visit by marking up its price and administration fees – as they did with Mr. Hinds. If they merely write a prescription for a drug that can be taken at home, they earn nothing.

Asked about this high patient charge and the possibility of using alternatives, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo said payment was “appropriately based on the hospital’s contract and the member’s benefit plan,” adding that the insurer encourages customers to shop around for the best quality and price.

Resolution: In addition to leaving Mr. Hinds listless, the Lupron Depot shots were, literally, a pain in the rear end. “Each time he was miserable for 2 weeks,” Dr. Tenore said. After looking over his first bill for the Lupron shot, Dr. Tenore told Mr. Hinds he should ask his doctor whether there was a less expensive drug that was easier to take.

After the second shot, in August 2021, a pharmacist told him he could instead receive the pill. His doctor prescribed Mr. Hinds 3 months’ worth of Orgovyx last November, for which he paid $216 and the insurer paid over $6,000. The drug’s list price is about $2,700 a month. There is evidence that Orgovyx works a little better than leuprolide.

Orgovyx was a “no-brainer,” Mr. Hinds said. “Why would you want a sore ass for two weeks when you can take a pill that kicks in sooner, functions the same way, and clears your body of testosterone faster?”

While Orgovyx is increasingly used for prostate cancer, Lupron and other injections usually remain the standard of care, hospital spokesperson Ashley Heher said. Clinicians “work with patients to determine what treatments are the most medically effective and, when necessary, to find reasonable alternatives that may be less financially burdensome due to insurance coverage limitations.”

Mr. Hinds was baffled by the size of the charges. During months of phone calls and emails, the hospital reversed and then reapplied part of the charge, and then in July agreed to a $666.34 monthly payment plan. After Hinds had made two payments, however, the hospital announced Aug. 29 it was canceling the agreement and sending the remainder of his bill to a collection agency. Two weeks later, the hospital reinstated the payment plan – after KHN asked about the cancellation.

As for Mr. Hinds, he remains active, though his bike rides have been shortened from 50 or 60 miles to about 30, he said.

He’s grateful to have Dr. Tenore as a free consultant and empathizes with those who lack a knowledgeable guide through their disease and health care’s financial maze.

“I’ve got Dr. Josie as an advocate who knows the system,” Mr. Hinds said.

The takeaway: First tip: If you are prescribed an infusion or injection, ask your physician if there are cheaper oral medications to treat your condition. Also, many drugs that are given by injection – ones that are given “subcutaneously,” rather than into a muscle – can be administered by a patient at home, avoiding hefty administration fees. Drugs like Dupixent for eczema fall into this category.

Keep in mind that where you get treatment could make a big difference in your charges: A study found that leading U.S. cancer centers charge enormous markups to private insurers for drug injections or infusions. Another study found that hospital systems charge an average of 86% more than private clinics for cancer drug infusions. And the percentage of cancer infusions done in hospital-operated clinics increased from 6% in 2004 to 43% in 2014, and has grown since.

Under a law that took effect in 2021, hospitals are required to list their charges, though they currently do so in a way that is not user friendly. But it’s worth taking a look at the price list – the hospital chargemaster – to try to decipher the pricing and markup for your medicine. If you’re about to get an injection, infusion, or procedure done in a hospital system, ask ahead of time for an estimate of what you will owe.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Josie Tenore, MD, and Paul Hinds were introduced by a mutual friend in 2017 and hadn’t been going out long when she laid down the law: He had to get a physical.

“I don’t date people who don’t take care of their health,” said Dr. Tenore, who practices cosmetic dermatology and functional medicine in suburban Chicago.

One of Mr. Hinds’ blood tests that summer came back with an alarming result: His prostate-specific antigen (PSA), level was very high. A biopsy confirmed he had advanced prostate cancer.

There aren’t a lot of comfortable alternatives for treating prostate cancer, which generally progresses as long as testosterone levels remain high. Marijuana appears to lower testosterone levels, so after his diagnosis, he dosed a liquid form of cannabis for several weeks. That cut his PSA in half, but Mr. Hinds, a cybersecurity expert who likes yoga and bicycling, “was stoned out of his mind and couldn’t function,” Dr. Tenore recalled.

With Dr. Tenore guiding his decisions, Mr. Hinds next tried high-frequency ultrasound treatment, but it failed. And in the summer of 2019 doctors removed his prostate gland. Still, the PSA levels climbed again, and doctors assessed that the cancer had metastasized. The only alternative was to drastically lower Mr. Hinds’ testosterone levels – either via surgery or drugs that block all testosterone. In May 2021, he got his first intramuscular shot of Lupron Depot, a brand name for leuprolide, designed to suppress the prostate gland’s release of the hormone for 3 months. That August, he got his second shot.

And then the bills came.

The patient: Paul Hinds, now 60, is covered by United Healthcare through a COBRA plan from his former employer.

Medical service: Two 3-month Lupron Depot injections for metastatic prostate cancer.

Service provider: University of Chicago Medicine, a 900-physician nonprofit system that includes an 811-bed medical center, a suburban hospital, the Pritzker School of Medicine, and outpatient clinics and physician offices throughout the Chicago area.

Total bill: $73,812 for the two shots ($35,414 for the first, $38,398 for the second), including lab work and physician charges. United Healthcare’s negotiated rate for the two shots plus associated fees was $27,568, of which the insurer paid $19,567. After Mr. Hinds haggled with the hospital and insurer for more than a year, his share of the bills was determined to be nearly $7,000.

What gives: The first issue is unrelenting price increases on old drugs that have remained branded as manufacturers find ways to extend patents for decades and maintain sales through marketing.

Though Lupron was invented in 1973, its manufacturer got patent extensions in 1989 by offering a slow-release version. Drugmakers commonly use this tactic to extend their exclusive rights to sell a product.

The development of Lupron Depot as an intramuscular shot that suppressed testosterone for months at a time improved patient compliance and also enabled its maker, Abbott Laboratories, and its Japanese partner, Takeda, to extend their patents on the drug into the 2000s, said Gerald Weisberg, MD, a former Abbott scientist who has been critical of the company’s pricing policies.

In subsequent years, Abbott and Takeda, in a joint venture called TAP Pharmaceuticals, steadily marked up the price of their slow-release product. In 2000, the average wholesale U.S. price for a 3-month shot was $1,245; currently that figure is $5,866. (It is manufactured in the United States by AbbVie now.)

In the United Kingdom, where health care is generally free and Takeda sells the drug under the name Prostap, all physicians can purchase a 3-month dose for about $260.

It’s likely that Chicago Medicine, where Mr. Hinds got his shots, paid something close to the British price. That’s because the health system’s hospital on Chicago’s South Side participates in a federal program called 340B, which allows hospitals that serve low-income populations to purchase drugs at deep discounts.

Lupron Depot is given as a simple injection into the muscle. It takes minutes for a nurse or doctor to administer. Yet hospital systems like Chicago Medicine can and typically do charge lavishly for such services, to enhance revenue, said Morgan Henderson, principal data scientist at the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. Chicago Medicine declined to say what it paid for the drug.

While U.S. drugmakers can price their drugs however they please, TAP has gotten into trouble for its Lupron sales policies in the past. In 2001, after a Justice Department probe, it paid an $875 million settlement for illegally stimulating sales by giving urologists free and discounted vials of the drug while enabling them to charge Medicare full price.

Since then, many other drugs aimed at lowering testosterone levels have entered the market, including a pill, relugolix (Orgovyx). So why wouldn’t a patient use them?

Lupron Depot is long acting, is easy to prepare and store, and employs a small needle, which some patients prefer, said Brian McNeil, MD, chief of urology at University Hospital of Brooklyn. Orgovyx is convenient, but “a patient has to be very compliant. They have to take it every day around the same time,” he said. “Some people just forget.”

But there is another important factor that may well explain Lupron Depot’s ongoing popularity among medical providers: Doctors and hospitals can earn tens of thousands of dollars each visit by marking up its price and administration fees – as they did with Mr. Hinds. If they merely write a prescription for a drug that can be taken at home, they earn nothing.

Asked about this high patient charge and the possibility of using alternatives, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo said payment was “appropriately based on the hospital’s contract and the member’s benefit plan,” adding that the insurer encourages customers to shop around for the best quality and price.

Resolution: In addition to leaving Mr. Hinds listless, the Lupron Depot shots were, literally, a pain in the rear end. “Each time he was miserable for 2 weeks,” Dr. Tenore said. After looking over his first bill for the Lupron shot, Dr. Tenore told Mr. Hinds he should ask his doctor whether there was a less expensive drug that was easier to take.

After the second shot, in August 2021, a pharmacist told him he could instead receive the pill. His doctor prescribed Mr. Hinds 3 months’ worth of Orgovyx last November, for which he paid $216 and the insurer paid over $6,000. The drug’s list price is about $2,700 a month. There is evidence that Orgovyx works a little better than leuprolide.

Orgovyx was a “no-brainer,” Mr. Hinds said. “Why would you want a sore ass for two weeks when you can take a pill that kicks in sooner, functions the same way, and clears your body of testosterone faster?”

While Orgovyx is increasingly used for prostate cancer, Lupron and other injections usually remain the standard of care, hospital spokesperson Ashley Heher said. Clinicians “work with patients to determine what treatments are the most medically effective and, when necessary, to find reasonable alternatives that may be less financially burdensome due to insurance coverage limitations.”

Mr. Hinds was baffled by the size of the charges. During months of phone calls and emails, the hospital reversed and then reapplied part of the charge, and then in July agreed to a $666.34 monthly payment plan. After Hinds had made two payments, however, the hospital announced Aug. 29 it was canceling the agreement and sending the remainder of his bill to a collection agency. Two weeks later, the hospital reinstated the payment plan – after KHN asked about the cancellation.

As for Mr. Hinds, he remains active, though his bike rides have been shortened from 50 or 60 miles to about 30, he said.

He’s grateful to have Dr. Tenore as a free consultant and empathizes with those who lack a knowledgeable guide through their disease and health care’s financial maze.

“I’ve got Dr. Josie as an advocate who knows the system,” Mr. Hinds said.

The takeaway: First tip: If you are prescribed an infusion or injection, ask your physician if there are cheaper oral medications to treat your condition. Also, many drugs that are given by injection – ones that are given “subcutaneously,” rather than into a muscle – can be administered by a patient at home, avoiding hefty administration fees. Drugs like Dupixent for eczema fall into this category.

Keep in mind that where you get treatment could make a big difference in your charges: A study found that leading U.S. cancer centers charge enormous markups to private insurers for drug injections or infusions. Another study found that hospital systems charge an average of 86% more than private clinics for cancer drug infusions. And the percentage of cancer infusions done in hospital-operated clinics increased from 6% in 2004 to 43% in 2014, and has grown since.

Under a law that took effect in 2021, hospitals are required to list their charges, though they currently do so in a way that is not user friendly. But it’s worth taking a look at the price list – the hospital chargemaster – to try to decipher the pricing and markup for your medicine. If you’re about to get an injection, infusion, or procedure done in a hospital system, ask ahead of time for an estimate of what you will owe.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.