Practice Management

A prominent Florida oncologist was arrested in December, and some members of the medical community are puzzled.

Michael Dattoli, MD, a radiation oncologist and physician-in-chief of the Dattoli Cancer Center in Sarasota, Fla., has been charged with prescription and insurance fraud, according to the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office.

The charges include three counts of possessing a controlled substance by fraud, three counts of criminal use of personal identification information, and three counts of insurance fraud.

Dr. Dattoli was arrested on December 16.

According to investigators, a former employee of the Dattoli Cancer Center alleged that Dr. Dattoli filled prescriptions for diazepam (Valium) three times in his wife’s name using a different healthcare provider’s information.

Some experts find it bizarre for a physician of his stature to have possibly engaged in such a transgression — a relatively minor fraud that comes with serious consequences.

“This is a very well-respected physician who has done a lot of good in the community, and this makes no sense at all,” said Jay Wolfson, PhD, JD, Distinguished Service Professor of Public Health Medicine and Pharmacy and associate vice president for health law, policy, and safety at the University of South Florida, Tampa. “It’s low-level fraud, and not like he was laundering money or involved in pill mills, which has been problematic in Florida.”

According to recent accounts from local news agencies, in August 2021, the Sarasota police connected with investigators from the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office’s Pharmaceutical Diversion Unit regarding prescription fraud dating back to 2019 and 2020 involving Dr. Dattoli and a “victim.”

The victim, a former employee of the Dattoli Cancer Center, had left his job at the end of 2020 after 5 years. His name and position at the cancer center were redacted in the arrest warrant, but the warrant mentions that he treated patients while he worked at the center.

The former employee told police that when checking the Florida prescription drug database for controlled substances in September 2021, he noticed that several fraudulent prescriptions for diazepam — a controlled substance — had been entered from 2020. The recipient was Dr. Dattoli’s wife, Rita Beatrice Dattoli, but the former employee stated he had never authorized these prescriptions and that Dr. Dattoli’s wife was never his patient.

In September 2021, the police obtained copies of multiple prescriptions from local pharmacies that were phoned in throughout 2020 by the Dattoli Cancer Center. The prescriptions were filled and picked up the same day by Dr. Dattoli himself, whose identity had been verified by his driver’s license.

Dr. Dattoli’s wife, who was interviewed by the police in October 2021, stated she had never been a patient at the center, that the prescription was not hers, and that she had never used the prescribed drug.

A month later, the Sarasota police subpoenaed bank records that matched accounts belonging to Dr. Dattoli, which showed the same dates, total purchase price, and stores where fraudulent prescriptions were filled, picked up, and purchased.

None of this really makes any sense, Dr. Wolfson told this news organizataion. “Any physician in need of Valium doesn’t have to forge a prescription, he can get it from any of his colleagues,” he noted. “And why put it in his wife’s name? He also submitted it to his insurance, which leaves more of a paper trail. And he didn’t need to have insurance pay for it — Valium is a very inexpensive drug.”

Plus, Dr. Wolfson added, “I know people who have been treated by Dr. Dattoli and they have nothing but good things to say about him — he’s an excellent doctor with a great bedside manner. His record is clean, he’s never been reprimanded, he’s built a successful practice, and then this thing just parachutes out of the sky.”

The investigation is ongoing, and detectives from the Sarasota police department have stated that they “believe there may be additional victims.”

Dr. Dattoli was released the day after his arrest on a $1,500 bond. His arraignment is scheduled for January 22. If convicted, he could face prison time, fines, or even lose his license to practice medicine.

Dr. Wolfson added that the arraignment is the first step in the process. “But even if it can be determined that he forged a signature, I don’t think it will rise to a level where his license will be revoked,” he said.

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

A prominent Florida oncologist was arrested in December, and some members of the medical community are puzzled.

Michael Dattoli, MD, a radiation oncologist and physician-in-chief of the Dattoli Cancer Center in Sarasota, Fla., has been charged with prescription and insurance fraud, according to the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office.

The charges include three counts of possessing a controlled substance by fraud, three counts of criminal use of personal identification information, and three counts of insurance fraud.

Dr. Dattoli was arrested on December 16.

According to investigators, a former employee of the Dattoli Cancer Center alleged that Dr. Dattoli filled prescriptions for diazepam (Valium) three times in his wife’s name using a different healthcare provider’s information.

Some experts find it bizarre for a physician of his stature to have possibly engaged in such a transgression — a relatively minor fraud that comes with serious consequences.

“This is a very well-respected physician who has done a lot of good in the community, and this makes no sense at all,” said Jay Wolfson, PhD, JD, Distinguished Service Professor of Public Health Medicine and Pharmacy and associate vice president for health law, policy, and safety at the University of South Florida, Tampa. “It’s low-level fraud, and not like he was laundering money or involved in pill mills, which has been problematic in Florida.”

According to recent accounts from local news agencies, in August 2021, the Sarasota police connected with investigators from the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office’s Pharmaceutical Diversion Unit regarding prescription fraud dating back to 2019 and 2020 involving Dr. Dattoli and a “victim.”

The victim, a former employee of the Dattoli Cancer Center, had left his job at the end of 2020 after 5 years. His name and position at the cancer center were redacted in the arrest warrant, but the warrant mentions that he treated patients while he worked at the center.

The former employee told police that when checking the Florida prescription drug database for controlled substances in September 2021, he noticed that several fraudulent prescriptions for diazepam — a controlled substance — had been entered from 2020. The recipient was Dr. Dattoli’s wife, Rita Beatrice Dattoli, but the former employee stated he had never authorized these prescriptions and that Dr. Dattoli’s wife was never his patient.

In September 2021, the police obtained copies of multiple prescriptions from local pharmacies that were phoned in throughout 2020 by the Dattoli Cancer Center. The prescriptions were filled and picked up the same day by Dr. Dattoli himself, whose identity had been verified by his driver’s license.

Dr. Dattoli’s wife, who was interviewed by the police in October 2021, stated she had never been a patient at the center, that the prescription was not hers, and that she had never used the prescribed drug.

A month later, the Sarasota police subpoenaed bank records that matched accounts belonging to Dr. Dattoli, which showed the same dates, total purchase price, and stores where fraudulent prescriptions were filled, picked up, and purchased.

None of this really makes any sense, Dr. Wolfson told this news organizataion. “Any physician in need of Valium doesn’t have to forge a prescription, he can get it from any of his colleagues,” he noted. “And why put it in his wife’s name? He also submitted it to his insurance, which leaves more of a paper trail. And he didn’t need to have insurance pay for it — Valium is a very inexpensive drug.”

Plus, Dr. Wolfson added, “I know people who have been treated by Dr. Dattoli and they have nothing but good things to say about him — he’s an excellent doctor with a great bedside manner. His record is clean, he’s never been reprimanded, he’s built a successful practice, and then this thing just parachutes out of the sky.”

The investigation is ongoing, and detectives from the Sarasota police department have stated that they “believe there may be additional victims.”

Dr. Dattoli was released the day after his arrest on a $1,500 bond. His arraignment is scheduled for January 22. If convicted, he could face prison time, fines, or even lose his license to practice medicine.

Dr. Wolfson added that the arraignment is the first step in the process. “But even if it can be determined that he forged a signature, I don’t think it will rise to a level where his license will be revoked,” he said.

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

A prominent Florida oncologist was arrested in December, and some members of the medical community are puzzled.

Michael Dattoli, MD, a radiation oncologist and physician-in-chief of the Dattoli Cancer Center in Sarasota, Fla., has been charged with prescription and insurance fraud, according to the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office.

The charges include three counts of possessing a controlled substance by fraud, three counts of criminal use of personal identification information, and three counts of insurance fraud.

Dr. Dattoli was arrested on December 16.

According to investigators, a former employee of the Dattoli Cancer Center alleged that Dr. Dattoli filled prescriptions for diazepam (Valium) three times in his wife’s name using a different healthcare provider’s information.

Some experts find it bizarre for a physician of his stature to have possibly engaged in such a transgression — a relatively minor fraud that comes with serious consequences.

“This is a very well-respected physician who has done a lot of good in the community, and this makes no sense at all,” said Jay Wolfson, PhD, JD, Distinguished Service Professor of Public Health Medicine and Pharmacy and associate vice president for health law, policy, and safety at the University of South Florida, Tampa. “It’s low-level fraud, and not like he was laundering money or involved in pill mills, which has been problematic in Florida.”

According to recent accounts from local news agencies, in August 2021, the Sarasota police connected with investigators from the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office’s Pharmaceutical Diversion Unit regarding prescription fraud dating back to 2019 and 2020 involving Dr. Dattoli and a “victim.”

The victim, a former employee of the Dattoli Cancer Center, had left his job at the end of 2020 after 5 years. His name and position at the cancer center were redacted in the arrest warrant, but the warrant mentions that he treated patients while he worked at the center.

The former employee told police that when checking the Florida prescription drug database for controlled substances in September 2021, he noticed that several fraudulent prescriptions for diazepam — a controlled substance — had been entered from 2020. The recipient was Dr. Dattoli’s wife, Rita Beatrice Dattoli, but the former employee stated he had never authorized these prescriptions and that Dr. Dattoli’s wife was never his patient.

In September 2021, the police obtained copies of multiple prescriptions from local pharmacies that were phoned in throughout 2020 by the Dattoli Cancer Center. The prescriptions were filled and picked up the same day by Dr. Dattoli himself, whose identity had been verified by his driver’s license.

Dr. Dattoli’s wife, who was interviewed by the police in October 2021, stated she had never been a patient at the center, that the prescription was not hers, and that she had never used the prescribed drug.

A month later, the Sarasota police subpoenaed bank records that matched accounts belonging to Dr. Dattoli, which showed the same dates, total purchase price, and stores where fraudulent prescriptions were filled, picked up, and purchased.

None of this really makes any sense, Dr. Wolfson told this news organizataion. “Any physician in need of Valium doesn’t have to forge a prescription, he can get it from any of his colleagues,” he noted. “And why put it in his wife’s name? He also submitted it to his insurance, which leaves more of a paper trail. And he didn’t need to have insurance pay for it — Valium is a very inexpensive drug.”

Plus, Dr. Wolfson added, “I know people who have been treated by Dr. Dattoli and they have nothing but good things to say about him — he’s an excellent doctor with a great bedside manner. His record is clean, he’s never been reprimanded, he’s built a successful practice, and then this thing just parachutes out of the sky.”

The investigation is ongoing, and detectives from the Sarasota police department have stated that they “believe there may be additional victims.”

Dr. Dattoli was released the day after his arrest on a $1,500 bond. His arraignment is scheduled for January 22. If convicted, he could face prison time, fines, or even lose his license to practice medicine.

Dr. Wolfson added that the arraignment is the first step in the process. “But even if it can be determined that he forged a signature, I don’t think it will rise to a level where his license will be revoked,” he said.

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

As of 2018, the mean dermatologist to population ratio in the United States was 1.10 per 100,000 people, highlighting a shortage of dermatologists that is only predicted to increase in coming years.^1-4 This undersupply is fueled by both an increasing burden of dermatologic disease and population growth.⁴ Without readily available access to dermatologic care, many patients are left waiting for weeks to see a dermatologist, depending on geographic region.^5-7 It is not simply patients who perceive wait times to be prolonged; approximately half of dermatologists surveyed by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) reported an undersupply of dermatologists in their communities, a finding that strongly correlated with patient wait times.² Ensuring the dermatologic workforce is sufficient to fulfill patient needs requires innovation of current practice models. To address this unmet demand, many practices have begun incorporating physician extenders, a term that encompasses physicians not board certified in dermatology, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners.⁷ The evolving landscape of the dermatologic workforce raises questions about future practice models and patient outcomes.

Scope of Practice for Physician Extenders

In practice, the role of physician extenders is highly variable. Legislation involving the scope of practice for physician extenders constantly is changing and varies by state. As of November 2021, 24 states and the District of Columbia permit nurse practitioners “full practice” authority to triage patients, interpret diagnostic tests, and prescribe treatments without physician oversight, including controlled substances.^8,9 Even in states with “reduced practice” and “restricted practice” paradigms, which necessitate physician oversight, there remains ambiguity. Across the country, state regulatory bodies differ in statues governing licensing requirements, accessibility of the supervising physician, and ultimately culpability in the case of patient harm. Lack of consensus guidelines that clearly define roles and responsibilities has kindled controversy regarding extent of autonomy and liability for adverse outcomes.^10,11

With respect to procedures, the AAD has explicitly recommended that “only active and properly licensed doctors of medicine and osteopathy shall engage in the practice of medicine” but that “under appropriate circumstances, a physician may delegate certain procedures and services to appropriately trained nonphysician office personnel.”¹² This statement does not refer to or explicitly list the procedures that are appropriate for delegation to nonphysician personnel, and there is wide variability in how this recommendation is applied in daily practice. As it was originally intended, the AAD’s “Ethics in Medical Practice” position statement indicated that dermatologists must directly oversee physician extenders, a responsibility that is defined as being “present on-site, immediately available and able to respond promptly” to issues arising during the provision of health care services.¹²

Adverse Events From Cosmetic Procedures

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery has documented a steady growth in the demand for cosmetic, medical, and surgical services,¹³ a trend that has heralded an increase in the number of procedures performed by physician extenders.^14,15 One study contrasted the risk for adverse events following minimally invasive cosmetic procedures performed by physicians or nonphysicians. Of 2116 patients surveyed, 50 adverse events were documented.¹⁴ The cohort treated by nonphysicians experienced a higher incidence of laser burns and dyspigmentation, and the use of improper technique was the most frequently implicated cause of developing an adverse event. Approximately 24.6% of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery members reported treating 10 or more complications of cosmetic procedures performed by nonphysicians.¹⁴ Beyond laser burns and dyspigmentation, this wide range of complications included inappropriately placed filler product, facial drooping, and scarring. These studies highlight the need for further investigation into the outcomes of procedures performed by physician extenders.

Training of Physician Extenders

Even with medical management, emphasis on proper training of personnel is key and remains a legitimate concern. The training of physician extenders in dermatology differs greatly by location; while some physician extenders operate under meticulous guidance and thus can expand their skill set, other physician extenders shadow dermatologists for an arbitrary amount of time before being thrust into practice.¹⁰ It would be a disservice to both patients and nonphysician providers alike to conflate the latter regimen with the 4 years of medical school, 1 year of internship, and 3 years of rigorous specialized dermatologic training that physicians undergo.

This stark discrepancy between the training of physicians and physician extenders raises difficult questions about the patient’s right to make an informed decision regarding how they receive health care. Indeed, the casually regulated autonomous practice of some nonphysician providers has ignited public shock and ire.¹¹

Reducing Health Care Expenditures

As legislatures deliberate over expanding scope of practice, policies should be based on evidence that prioritizes patient safety. In the appropriate setting, physician extenders can be instrumental to mitigating health care disparities; the use of physician extenders can diminish wait times for patients with routine visits for stable dermatologic disease.¹⁶ Moreover, reducing health care expenditures often is cited as a major benefit of increased utilization of physician extenders.¹⁴ It stands to reason that compensation of nonphysician providers is less expensive for a practice compared with physicians. Physician extenders participating in the management of stable chronic conditions or mild acute conditions may be cost-efficient in these circumstances; however, evidence suggests that physician extenders may incur greater costs than physicians with respect to the utilization of diagnostic tests or prescribing medications. For example, several studies have documented a substantial difference in the number of biopsies needed per malignant neoplasm by physicians compared to physician extenders.^17-19 Particularly in patients younger than 65 years and in patients without history of skin cancer, physician extenders had to perform a greater number of biopsies to diagnose malignant neoplasms vs physicians.¹⁸ In addition to increased utilization of diagnostic tests, nonphysician providers more frequently prescribe medications of varying classes.^20-22 Whether in outpatient offices, emergency departments, or hospital clinics, physician extenders more frequently prescribe antibiotics, which has concerning implications for antibiotic stewardship.^20,21 In states with independent prescription authority, physician extenders are more than 20 times more likely to overprescribeopioids compared to physician extenders in states requiring physician supervision.²³ These findings warrant additional investigation into how prescription patterns vary by provider type and how these differences impact patient outcomes.

Final Thoughts

Improving patient care is inherently a team endeavor, and the contributions of all members of the health care team are critical to success. Engaging physician extenders may help mitigate disparities in dermatologic care, with respect to surveillance of stable chronic conditions or the diagnosis of mild acute diseases. However, the exact scope of practice of physician extenders remains ambiguous, and their training regimens can vary drastically. Therefore, in the interest of patient safety, new patients or medically complex patients (ie, cutaneous lymphomas, nonstable autoimmune connective tissue disease) should be examined and managed by physicians. In either scenario, the patient should be informed of which providers are available and should be integrated into the decision-making process for their care. Through mutual respect, close collaboration, and candid assessments of patient complexity, different parties within the medical team can unite behind the mission to improve patient outcomes and champion equitable access to health care.

As of 2018, the mean dermatologist to population ratio in the United States was 1.10 per 100,000 people, highlighting a shortage of dermatologists that is only predicted to increase in coming years.^1-4 This undersupply is fueled by both an increasing burden of dermatologic disease and population growth.⁴ Without readily available access to dermatologic care, many patients are left waiting for weeks to see a dermatologist, depending on geographic region.^5-7 It is not simply patients who perceive wait times to be prolonged; approximately half of dermatologists surveyed by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) reported an undersupply of dermatologists in their communities, a finding that strongly correlated with patient wait times.² Ensuring the dermatologic workforce is sufficient to fulfill patient needs requires innovation of current practice models. To address this unmet demand, many practices have begun incorporating physician extenders, a term that encompasses physicians not board certified in dermatology, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners.⁷ The evolving landscape of the dermatologic workforce raises questions about future practice models and patient outcomes.

Scope of Practice for Physician Extenders

In practice, the role of physician extenders is highly variable. Legislation involving the scope of practice for physician extenders constantly is changing and varies by state. As of November 2021, 24 states and the District of Columbia permit nurse practitioners “full practice” authority to triage patients, interpret diagnostic tests, and prescribe treatments without physician oversight, including controlled substances.^8,9 Even in states with “reduced practice” and “restricted practice” paradigms, which necessitate physician oversight, there remains ambiguity. Across the country, state regulatory bodies differ in statues governing licensing requirements, accessibility of the supervising physician, and ultimately culpability in the case of patient harm. Lack of consensus guidelines that clearly define roles and responsibilities has kindled controversy regarding extent of autonomy and liability for adverse outcomes.^10,11

With respect to procedures, the AAD has explicitly recommended that “only active and properly licensed doctors of medicine and osteopathy shall engage in the practice of medicine” but that “under appropriate circumstances, a physician may delegate certain procedures and services to appropriately trained nonphysician office personnel.”¹² This statement does not refer to or explicitly list the procedures that are appropriate for delegation to nonphysician personnel, and there is wide variability in how this recommendation is applied in daily practice. As it was originally intended, the AAD’s “Ethics in Medical Practice” position statement indicated that dermatologists must directly oversee physician extenders, a responsibility that is defined as being “present on-site, immediately available and able to respond promptly” to issues arising during the provision of health care services.¹²

Adverse Events From Cosmetic Procedures

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery has documented a steady growth in the demand for cosmetic, medical, and surgical services,¹³ a trend that has heralded an increase in the number of procedures performed by physician extenders.^14,15 One study contrasted the risk for adverse events following minimally invasive cosmetic procedures performed by physicians or nonphysicians. Of 2116 patients surveyed, 50 adverse events were documented.¹⁴ The cohort treated by nonphysicians experienced a higher incidence of laser burns and dyspigmentation, and the use of improper technique was the most frequently implicated cause of developing an adverse event. Approximately 24.6% of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery members reported treating 10 or more complications of cosmetic procedures performed by nonphysicians.¹⁴ Beyond laser burns and dyspigmentation, this wide range of complications included inappropriately placed filler product, facial drooping, and scarring. These studies highlight the need for further investigation into the outcomes of procedures performed by physician extenders.

Training of Physician Extenders

Even with medical management, emphasis on proper training of personnel is key and remains a legitimate concern. The training of physician extenders in dermatology differs greatly by location; while some physician extenders operate under meticulous guidance and thus can expand their skill set, other physician extenders shadow dermatologists for an arbitrary amount of time before being thrust into practice.¹⁰ It would be a disservice to both patients and nonphysician providers alike to conflate the latter regimen with the 4 years of medical school, 1 year of internship, and 3 years of rigorous specialized dermatologic training that physicians undergo.

This stark discrepancy between the training of physicians and physician extenders raises difficult questions about the patient’s right to make an informed decision regarding how they receive health care. Indeed, the casually regulated autonomous practice of some nonphysician providers has ignited public shock and ire.¹¹

Reducing Health Care Expenditures

As legislatures deliberate over expanding scope of practice, policies should be based on evidence that prioritizes patient safety. In the appropriate setting, physician extenders can be instrumental to mitigating health care disparities; the use of physician extenders can diminish wait times for patients with routine visits for stable dermatologic disease.¹⁶ Moreover, reducing health care expenditures often is cited as a major benefit of increased utilization of physician extenders.¹⁴ It stands to reason that compensation of nonphysician providers is less expensive for a practice compared with physicians. Physician extenders participating in the management of stable chronic conditions or mild acute conditions may be cost-efficient in these circumstances; however, evidence suggests that physician extenders may incur greater costs than physicians with respect to the utilization of diagnostic tests or prescribing medications. For example, several studies have documented a substantial difference in the number of biopsies needed per malignant neoplasm by physicians compared to physician extenders.^17-19 Particularly in patients younger than 65 years and in patients without history of skin cancer, physician extenders had to perform a greater number of biopsies to diagnose malignant neoplasms vs physicians.¹⁸ In addition to increased utilization of diagnostic tests, nonphysician providers more frequently prescribe medications of varying classes.^20-22 Whether in outpatient offices, emergency departments, or hospital clinics, physician extenders more frequently prescribe antibiotics, which has concerning implications for antibiotic stewardship.^20,21 In states with independent prescription authority, physician extenders are more than 20 times more likely to overprescribeopioids compared to physician extenders in states requiring physician supervision.²³ These findings warrant additional investigation into how prescription patterns vary by provider type and how these differences impact patient outcomes.

Final Thoughts

Improving patient care is inherently a team endeavor, and the contributions of all members of the health care team are critical to success. Engaging physician extenders may help mitigate disparities in dermatologic care, with respect to surveillance of stable chronic conditions or the diagnosis of mild acute diseases. However, the exact scope of practice of physician extenders remains ambiguous, and their training regimens can vary drastically. Therefore, in the interest of patient safety, new patients or medically complex patients (ie, cutaneous lymphomas, nonstable autoimmune connective tissue disease) should be examined and managed by physicians. In either scenario, the patient should be informed of which providers are available and should be integrated into the decision-making process for their care. Through mutual respect, close collaboration, and candid assessments of patient complexity, different parties within the medical team can unite behind the mission to improve patient outcomes and champion equitable access to health care.

As of 2018, the mean dermatologist to population ratio in the United States was 1.10 per 100,000 people, highlighting a shortage of dermatologists that is only predicted to increase in coming years.^1-4 This undersupply is fueled by both an increasing burden of dermatologic disease and population growth.⁴ Without readily available access to dermatologic care, many patients are left waiting for weeks to see a dermatologist, depending on geographic region.^5-7 It is not simply patients who perceive wait times to be prolonged; approximately half of dermatologists surveyed by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) reported an undersupply of dermatologists in their communities, a finding that strongly correlated with patient wait times.² Ensuring the dermatologic workforce is sufficient to fulfill patient needs requires innovation of current practice models. To address this unmet demand, many practices have begun incorporating physician extenders, a term that encompasses physicians not board certified in dermatology, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners.⁷ The evolving landscape of the dermatologic workforce raises questions about future practice models and patient outcomes.

Scope of Practice for Physician Extenders

In practice, the role of physician extenders is highly variable. Legislation involving the scope of practice for physician extenders constantly is changing and varies by state. As of November 2021, 24 states and the District of Columbia permit nurse practitioners “full practice” authority to triage patients, interpret diagnostic tests, and prescribe treatments without physician oversight, including controlled substances.^8,9 Even in states with “reduced practice” and “restricted practice” paradigms, which necessitate physician oversight, there remains ambiguity. Across the country, state regulatory bodies differ in statues governing licensing requirements, accessibility of the supervising physician, and ultimately culpability in the case of patient harm. Lack of consensus guidelines that clearly define roles and responsibilities has kindled controversy regarding extent of autonomy and liability for adverse outcomes.^10,11

With respect to procedures, the AAD has explicitly recommended that “only active and properly licensed doctors of medicine and osteopathy shall engage in the practice of medicine” but that “under appropriate circumstances, a physician may delegate certain procedures and services to appropriately trained nonphysician office personnel.”¹² This statement does not refer to or explicitly list the procedures that are appropriate for delegation to nonphysician personnel, and there is wide variability in how this recommendation is applied in daily practice. As it was originally intended, the AAD’s “Ethics in Medical Practice” position statement indicated that dermatologists must directly oversee physician extenders, a responsibility that is defined as being “present on-site, immediately available and able to respond promptly” to issues arising during the provision of health care services.¹²

Adverse Events From Cosmetic Procedures

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery has documented a steady growth in the demand for cosmetic, medical, and surgical services,¹³ a trend that has heralded an increase in the number of procedures performed by physician extenders.^14,15 One study contrasted the risk for adverse events following minimally invasive cosmetic procedures performed by physicians or nonphysicians. Of 2116 patients surveyed, 50 adverse events were documented.¹⁴ The cohort treated by nonphysicians experienced a higher incidence of laser burns and dyspigmentation, and the use of improper technique was the most frequently implicated cause of developing an adverse event. Approximately 24.6% of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery members reported treating 10 or more complications of cosmetic procedures performed by nonphysicians.¹⁴ Beyond laser burns and dyspigmentation, this wide range of complications included inappropriately placed filler product, facial drooping, and scarring. These studies highlight the need for further investigation into the outcomes of procedures performed by physician extenders.

Training of Physician Extenders

Even with medical management, emphasis on proper training of personnel is key and remains a legitimate concern. The training of physician extenders in dermatology differs greatly by location; while some physician extenders operate under meticulous guidance and thus can expand their skill set, other physician extenders shadow dermatologists for an arbitrary amount of time before being thrust into practice.¹⁰ It would be a disservice to both patients and nonphysician providers alike to conflate the latter regimen with the 4 years of medical school, 1 year of internship, and 3 years of rigorous specialized dermatologic training that physicians undergo.

This stark discrepancy between the training of physicians and physician extenders raises difficult questions about the patient’s right to make an informed decision regarding how they receive health care. Indeed, the casually regulated autonomous practice of some nonphysician providers has ignited public shock and ire.¹¹

Reducing Health Care Expenditures

As legislatures deliberate over expanding scope of practice, policies should be based on evidence that prioritizes patient safety. In the appropriate setting, physician extenders can be instrumental to mitigating health care disparities; the use of physician extenders can diminish wait times for patients with routine visits for stable dermatologic disease.¹⁶ Moreover, reducing health care expenditures often is cited as a major benefit of increased utilization of physician extenders.¹⁴ It stands to reason that compensation of nonphysician providers is less expensive for a practice compared with physicians. Physician extenders participating in the management of stable chronic conditions or mild acute conditions may be cost-efficient in these circumstances; however, evidence suggests that physician extenders may incur greater costs than physicians with respect to the utilization of diagnostic tests or prescribing medications. For example, several studies have documented a substantial difference in the number of biopsies needed per malignant neoplasm by physicians compared to physician extenders.^17-19 Particularly in patients younger than 65 years and in patients without history of skin cancer, physician extenders had to perform a greater number of biopsies to diagnose malignant neoplasms vs physicians.¹⁸ In addition to increased utilization of diagnostic tests, nonphysician providers more frequently prescribe medications of varying classes.^20-22 Whether in outpatient offices, emergency departments, or hospital clinics, physician extenders more frequently prescribe antibiotics, which has concerning implications for antibiotic stewardship.^20,21 In states with independent prescription authority, physician extenders are more than 20 times more likely to overprescribeopioids compared to physician extenders in states requiring physician supervision.²³ These findings warrant additional investigation into how prescription patterns vary by provider type and how these differences impact patient outcomes.

Final Thoughts

Improving patient care is inherently a team endeavor, and the contributions of all members of the health care team are critical to success. Engaging physician extenders may help mitigate disparities in dermatologic care, with respect to surveillance of stable chronic conditions or the diagnosis of mild acute diseases. However, the exact scope of practice of physician extenders remains ambiguous, and their training regimens can vary drastically. Therefore, in the interest of patient safety, new patients or medically complex patients (ie, cutaneous lymphomas, nonstable autoimmune connective tissue disease) should be examined and managed by physicians. In either scenario, the patient should be informed of which providers are available and should be integrated into the decision-making process for their care. Through mutual respect, close collaboration, and candid assessments of patient complexity, different parties within the medical team can unite behind the mission to improve patient outcomes and champion equitable access to health care.

Federal officials will allow some flexibility in meeting new requirements on covering the costs of clinical trials for people enrolled in Medicaid, seeking to accommodate states where legislatures will not meet in time to make needed changes in rules.

Congress in 2020 ordered U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

The mandate went into effect on Jan. 1, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will allow accommodations in terms of implementation time for states that have not yet been able to make needed legislative changes, Daniel Tsai, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, wrote in a Dec. 7 letter. Mr. Tsai’s letter doesn’t mention specific states. The CMS did not immediately respond to a request seeking information on the states expected to apply for waivers.

Medicaid has in recent years been a rare large U.S. insurance program that does not cover the costs of clinical trials. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandated this coverage for people in private insurance plans. The federal government in 2000 decided that Medicare would do so.

‘A hidden opportunity’

A perspective article last May in the New England Journal of Medicine referred to the new Medicaid mandate on clinical trials as a “hidden opportunity,” referring to its genesis as an add-on in a massive federal spending package enacted in December 2020.

In the article, Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, MSHP, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors noted that rates of participation in clinical trials remain low for racial and ethnic minority groups, due in part to the lack of Medicaid coverage.

“For example, non-Hispanic White patients are nearly twice as likely as Black patients and three times as likely as Hispanic patients to enroll in cancer clinical trials – a gap that has widened over time,” Dr. Takvorian and coauthors wrote. “Inequities in enrollment have also manifested during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected non-White patients, without their commensurate representation in trials of COVID-19 therapeutics.”

In October, researchers from the Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Ohio State University, Columbus, published results of a retrospective study of patients with stage I-IV pancreatic cancer that also found inequities in enrollment. Mariam F. Eskander, MD, MPH, and coauthors reported what they found by examining records for 1,127 patients (0.4%) enrolled in clinical trials and 301,340 (99.6%) who did not enroll. They found that enrollment in trials increased over the study period, but not for Black patients or patients on Medicaid.

In an interview, Dr. Eskander said the new Medicaid policy will remove a major obstacle to participation in clinical trials. An oncologist, Dr. Eskander said she is looking forward to being able to help more of her patients get access to experimental medicines and treatments.

But that may not be enough to draw more people with low incomes into these studies, said Dr. Eskander, who is now at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick. She urges greater use of patient navigators to help people on Medicaid understand the resources available to them, as well as broad use of Medicaid’s nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefit.

“Some patients will be offered clinical trial enrollment and some will accept, but I really worry about the challenges low-income people face with things like transportation and getting time off work,” she said.

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

Federal officials will allow some flexibility in meeting new requirements on covering the costs of clinical trials for people enrolled in Medicaid, seeking to accommodate states where legislatures will not meet in time to make needed changes in rules.

Congress in 2020 ordered U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

The mandate went into effect on Jan. 1, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will allow accommodations in terms of implementation time for states that have not yet been able to make needed legislative changes, Daniel Tsai, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, wrote in a Dec. 7 letter. Mr. Tsai’s letter doesn’t mention specific states. The CMS did not immediately respond to a request seeking information on the states expected to apply for waivers.

Medicaid has in recent years been a rare large U.S. insurance program that does not cover the costs of clinical trials. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandated this coverage for people in private insurance plans. The federal government in 2000 decided that Medicare would do so.

‘A hidden opportunity’

A perspective article last May in the New England Journal of Medicine referred to the new Medicaid mandate on clinical trials as a “hidden opportunity,” referring to its genesis as an add-on in a massive federal spending package enacted in December 2020.

In the article, Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, MSHP, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors noted that rates of participation in clinical trials remain low for racial and ethnic minority groups, due in part to the lack of Medicaid coverage.

“For example, non-Hispanic White patients are nearly twice as likely as Black patients and three times as likely as Hispanic patients to enroll in cancer clinical trials – a gap that has widened over time,” Dr. Takvorian and coauthors wrote. “Inequities in enrollment have also manifested during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected non-White patients, without their commensurate representation in trials of COVID-19 therapeutics.”

In October, researchers from the Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Ohio State University, Columbus, published results of a retrospective study of patients with stage I-IV pancreatic cancer that also found inequities in enrollment. Mariam F. Eskander, MD, MPH, and coauthors reported what they found by examining records for 1,127 patients (0.4%) enrolled in clinical trials and 301,340 (99.6%) who did not enroll. They found that enrollment in trials increased over the study period, but not for Black patients or patients on Medicaid.

In an interview, Dr. Eskander said the new Medicaid policy will remove a major obstacle to participation in clinical trials. An oncologist, Dr. Eskander said she is looking forward to being able to help more of her patients get access to experimental medicines and treatments.

But that may not be enough to draw more people with low incomes into these studies, said Dr. Eskander, who is now at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick. She urges greater use of patient navigators to help people on Medicaid understand the resources available to them, as well as broad use of Medicaid’s nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefit.

“Some patients will be offered clinical trial enrollment and some will accept, but I really worry about the challenges low-income people face with things like transportation and getting time off work,” she said.

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

Federal officials will allow some flexibility in meeting new requirements on covering the costs of clinical trials for people enrolled in Medicaid, seeking to accommodate states where legislatures will not meet in time to make needed changes in rules.

Congress in 2020 ordered U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

The mandate went into effect on Jan. 1, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will allow accommodations in terms of implementation time for states that have not yet been able to make needed legislative changes, Daniel Tsai, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, wrote in a Dec. 7 letter. Mr. Tsai’s letter doesn’t mention specific states. The CMS did not immediately respond to a request seeking information on the states expected to apply for waivers.

Medicaid has in recent years been a rare large U.S. insurance program that does not cover the costs of clinical trials. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandated this coverage for people in private insurance plans. The federal government in 2000 decided that Medicare would do so.

‘A hidden opportunity’

A perspective article last May in the New England Journal of Medicine referred to the new Medicaid mandate on clinical trials as a “hidden opportunity,” referring to its genesis as an add-on in a massive federal spending package enacted in December 2020.

In the article, Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, MSHP, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors noted that rates of participation in clinical trials remain low for racial and ethnic minority groups, due in part to the lack of Medicaid coverage.

“For example, non-Hispanic White patients are nearly twice as likely as Black patients and three times as likely as Hispanic patients to enroll in cancer clinical trials – a gap that has widened over time,” Dr. Takvorian and coauthors wrote. “Inequities in enrollment have also manifested during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected non-White patients, without their commensurate representation in trials of COVID-19 therapeutics.”

In October, researchers from the Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Ohio State University, Columbus, published results of a retrospective study of patients with stage I-IV pancreatic cancer that also found inequities in enrollment. Mariam F. Eskander, MD, MPH, and coauthors reported what they found by examining records for 1,127 patients (0.4%) enrolled in clinical trials and 301,340 (99.6%) who did not enroll. They found that enrollment in trials increased over the study period, but not for Black patients or patients on Medicaid.

In an interview, Dr. Eskander said the new Medicaid policy will remove a major obstacle to participation in clinical trials. An oncologist, Dr. Eskander said she is looking forward to being able to help more of her patients get access to experimental medicines and treatments.

But that may not be enough to draw more people with low incomes into these studies, said Dr. Eskander, who is now at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick. She urges greater use of patient navigators to help people on Medicaid understand the resources available to them, as well as broad use of Medicaid’s nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefit.

“Some patients will be offered clinical trial enrollment and some will accept, but I really worry about the challenges low-income people face with things like transportation and getting time off work,” she said.

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

Dear colleagues and friends,

After an excellent debate on the future of telemedicine in GI in our most recent Perspectives column, we continue to explore changes in the way we traditionally provide care. In this issue, we discuss the GI hospitalist service, a relatively new but growing model of providing inpatient care. Is this the new ideal, allowing for more efficient care? Or are traditional or alternative models more appropriate? As with most things, the answer often lies somewhere in the middle, driven by local needs and infrastructure. Dr. Tau and Dr. Mehendiratta explore the pros and cons of these different approaches to providing inpatient GI care. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences on the AGA Community forum and by email ([email protected]).

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is an assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

The dedicated GI hospitalist: Taking ownership not ‘call’

By J. Andy Tau, MD

In my experience, a GI hospitalist provides mutual benefit to patients, employers, and consulting physicians. The patient benefits from more expedient consultations and expert endoscopic therapy, which translates to shorter hospitalizations and improved outcomes. The employer enjoys financial benefits as busy outpatient providers can stay busy without interruption. Consulting physicians enjoy having to only call a single phone number for trusted help from a familiar physician who does not rotate off service. Personally, the position provides the volume to develop valuable therapeutic endoscopy skills and techniques. With one stable physician at the helm, a sense of ownership can develop, rather than a sense of survival until “call” is over.

As a full-time GI hospitalist for a large single-specialty group, I provide inpatient GI and hepatology consultation from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday-Friday. I do not rotate off service. I cover three hospitals with a total of 1,000 beds with two advanced practice providers and one part-time physician. Except for endoscopic ultrasound, I perform all other endoscopic procedures. The census is usually 25-35 with an average of 10-15 new consults per day.

The most important benefit of a dedicated GI hospitalist is providing expedited consultation and expert endoscopy for patients. I can offer emergent (<6 hour) endoscopy for any patient. An esophageal food impaction is usually resolved within an hour of arrival to the ED during the day. I can help a surgeon intraoperatively on very short notice. As for acute GI bleeding cases, I oversee resuscitative efforts, while the endoscopy team prepares my preferred endoscopic equipment, eliminating surprises and delays before endoscopy. I have developed an expertise in hemostasis and managing esophageal perforations, along with a risk tolerance that cannot be matured in any setting other than daily emergency.

I have enacted evidence-based protocols for GI bleeding, iron-deficiency anemia, colonic pseudo-obstruction, pancreatitis, and liver decompensation, which internists have adopted over time, reducing phone calls and delays in prep or resuscitation.

While the day is unstructured and filled with interruptions, it is also very flexible. As opposed to the set time intervals of an outpatient clinic visit, I can spend an hour in a palliative care meeting or revisit high-risk patients multiple times a day to detect pending deterioration. Combined endoscopic and surgical cases are logistically easy to schedule given my flexibility. For example, patients with choledocholithiasis often can have a combined cholecystectomy and supine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the OR, shaving a day off admission.

My employer benefits financially as the outpatient doctors can stay busy without interruption from the hospital. With secure group messaging, we are able to make joint decisions and arrange close follow up. The relative value units earned from the hospital are high. Combined with proceeds from the professional service agreement with the hospital, they are more than enough to cover my compensation.

Any physician in need of a GI consult needs only to call one number for help. I make it as easy as possible to obtain a consult and never push back, as banal as any consult may seem. I stake my reputation on providing a service that is able, affable, and available. By teaching a consistent message to consulting physicians, I have now effected best evidence-based practices for GI conditions even without engaging me. The most notable examples include antibiotics for variceal bleeding, fluid resuscitation and early feeding for acute pancreatitis, risk stratification for choledocholithiasis, and last but not least, abandoning the inpatient fecal occult blood test.

I am on a first-name basis with every nurse in the hospital now. In exchange for my availability and cell phone number, they place orders for me and protect me from avoidable nuisances.

Many physician groups cover the inpatient service by rotating a week at a time. There can be at times a reluctance to take ownership over a difficult patient and instead a sense of “survival of the call”. However, in my job, “the buck stops with me” even if it is in the form of readmission. For example, I have to take some ownership of indigent patients who cannot easily follow up. Who will remove the stent I placed? How will they pay for Helicobacter pylori eradication or biologic therapy? Another example is diverticular bleeding. While 80% stop on their own, I take extraordinary efforts to endoscopically find and halt the bleeding in order to reduce the recurrence rate. I must find durable solutions because these high-risk patients are my responsibility again when they bounce back to me via the ED.

By way of volume alone, this position has allowed me to develop many therapeutic skills outside of a standard 3-year GI fellowship. While I did only 200 ERCPs in fellowship, I have become proficient in ERCP with around 400 cases per year (mostly native papilla) and have grown comfortable with the needle knife. I have learned endoscopic suturing, luminal stenting, and endoscopic vacuum-assisted therapy for perforation closure independently. Out of necessity, I developed a novel technique in optimizing the use of hemostatic powder by using a bone-wax plug. As endoscopy chief, I can purchase a wide variety of endoscopy equipment, compare brands, and understand the nuances of each.

In conclusion, the dedicated GI hospitalist indirectly improves the efficiency of an outpatient practice, while directly improving inpatient outcomes, collegiality, and even one’s own skills as an endoscopist. While it can be challenging and hectic, with the right mentality towards ownership of the service, it is also an incredibly rewarding position.

Dr. Tau practices with Austin Gastroenterology in Austin, Tex. He disclosed relationships with Cook Medical and Conmed.

Inpatient-only GI hospitalist: Not so fast

By Vaibhav Mehendiratta, MD

Over the past 2 decades, the medical hospitalist system has assumed care of hospitalized patients with the promise of reduced length of stay (LOS) and improved outcomes. Although data on LOS is promising, there have been conflicting results in terms of total medical costs and resource utilization. Inpatient care for patients with complex medical histories often requires regular communication with other subspecialties and outpatient providers to achieve better patient-centered outcomes.

Courtesy Connecticut GI, PC

Providing inpatient gastrointestinal care is complicated. Traditional models rely on physicians trying to balance outpatient obligations with inpatient rounding and procedures, which can result in delayed endoscopy and an inability to participate fully in multidisciplinary rounds and family meetings. The complexity of hospitalized patients often requires a multidisciplinary approach with coordination of care that is hard to accomplish in between seeing outpatients. GI groups, both private practice and academics, need to adopt a strategy for inpatient care that is tailored to the hospital system in which they operate.

As one of the largest private practice groups in New England, our experience can provide a framework for others to follow. We provide inpatient GI care at eight hospitals across northern Connecticut. Our inpatient service at the largest tertiary care hospital is composed of one general gastroenterologist, one advanced endoscopist, one transplant hepatologist, two advanced practitioners, and two fellows in training. Each practitioner provides coverage on a rotating basis, typically 1 week at a time every 4-8 weeks. This model also offers flexibility, such that we can typically accommodate urgent outpatient endoscopy for patients who may otherwise require inpatient care. Coverage at the other seven hospitals is tailored to local needs and ranges from half-day to whole-day coverage by general gastroenterologists and advanced practitioners. We believe that our model is financially viable and, based on our experience, inpatient relative value units generated are quite similar to a typical day in outpatient GI practice.

Inpatient GI care accounts for a substantial portion of overall inpatient care in the United States. Endoscopy delays have been the focus of many research articles looking at inpatient GI care. The delays are caused by many factors, including endoscopy unit/staff availability, anesthesia availability, and patient factors. While having a dedicated inpatient GI Hospitalist offers the potential to streamline access for hospital consultations and endoscopy, an exclusive inpatient GI hospitalist may be less familiar with a patient’s chronic GI illness and have different (and perhaps, conflicting) priorities regarding a patient’s care. Having incomplete access to outpatient records or less familiarity with the intricacies of outpatient care could also lead to duplication of work and increase the number of inpatient procedures that may have otherwise been deferred to the outpatient setting.

Additionally, with physician burnout on the rise and particularly in the inpatient setting, one must question the sustainability of an exclusively inpatient GI practice. That is, the hours and demands of inpatient care typically do not allow the quality of life that outpatient care provides. Our model provides time for dedicated inpatient care, while allowing each practitioner ample opportunity to build a robust outpatient practice.

Some health care organizations are adopting an extensivist model to provide comprehensive care to patients with multiple medical problems. Extensivists are outpatient primary care providers who take the time to coordinate with inpatient hospitalists to provide comprehensive care to their patients. Constant contact with outpatient providers during admission is expected to improve patient satisfaction, reduce hospital readmissions, and decrease inpatient resource utilization.

In conclusion, our experience highlights sustained benefits, and distinct advantages, of providing inpatient GI care without a GI hospitalist model. The pendulum in inpatient care keeps swinging and with progress arise new challenges and questions. Close collaboration between gastroenterologists and health systems to develop a program that fits local needs and allows optimal resource allocation will ensure delivery of high-quality inpatient GI care.

Dr. Mehendiratta is a gastroenterologist with Connecticut GI PC, Hartford, and assistant clinical professor in the department of medicine at the University of Connecticut, Farmington. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Dear colleagues and friends,

After an excellent debate on the future of telemedicine in GI in our most recent Perspectives column, we continue to explore changes in the way we traditionally provide care. In this issue, we discuss the GI hospitalist service, a relatively new but growing model of providing inpatient care. Is this the new ideal, allowing for more efficient care? Or are traditional or alternative models more appropriate? As with most things, the answer often lies somewhere in the middle, driven by local needs and infrastructure. Dr. Tau and Dr. Mehendiratta explore the pros and cons of these different approaches to providing inpatient GI care. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences on the AGA Community forum and by email ([email protected]).

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is an assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

The dedicated GI hospitalist: Taking ownership not ‘call’

By J. Andy Tau, MD

In my experience, a GI hospitalist provides mutual benefit to patients, employers, and consulting physicians. The patient benefits from more expedient consultations and expert endoscopic therapy, which translates to shorter hospitalizations and improved outcomes. The employer enjoys financial benefits as busy outpatient providers can stay busy without interruption. Consulting physicians enjoy having to only call a single phone number for trusted help from a familiar physician who does not rotate off service. Personally, the position provides the volume to develop valuable therapeutic endoscopy skills and techniques. With one stable physician at the helm, a sense of ownership can develop, rather than a sense of survival until “call” is over.

As a full-time GI hospitalist for a large single-specialty group, I provide inpatient GI and hepatology consultation from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday-Friday. I do not rotate off service. I cover three hospitals with a total of 1,000 beds with two advanced practice providers and one part-time physician. Except for endoscopic ultrasound, I perform all other endoscopic procedures. The census is usually 25-35 with an average of 10-15 new consults per day.

The most important benefit of a dedicated GI hospitalist is providing expedited consultation and expert endoscopy for patients. I can offer emergent (<6 hour) endoscopy for any patient. An esophageal food impaction is usually resolved within an hour of arrival to the ED during the day. I can help a surgeon intraoperatively on very short notice. As for acute GI bleeding cases, I oversee resuscitative efforts, while the endoscopy team prepares my preferred endoscopic equipment, eliminating surprises and delays before endoscopy. I have developed an expertise in hemostasis and managing esophageal perforations, along with a risk tolerance that cannot be matured in any setting other than daily emergency.

I have enacted evidence-based protocols for GI bleeding, iron-deficiency anemia, colonic pseudo-obstruction, pancreatitis, and liver decompensation, which internists have adopted over time, reducing phone calls and delays in prep or resuscitation.

While the day is unstructured and filled with interruptions, it is also very flexible. As opposed to the set time intervals of an outpatient clinic visit, I can spend an hour in a palliative care meeting or revisit high-risk patients multiple times a day to detect pending deterioration. Combined endoscopic and surgical cases are logistically easy to schedule given my flexibility. For example, patients with choledocholithiasis often can have a combined cholecystectomy and supine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the OR, shaving a day off admission.

My employer benefits financially as the outpatient doctors can stay busy without interruption from the hospital. With secure group messaging, we are able to make joint decisions and arrange close follow up. The relative value units earned from the hospital are high. Combined with proceeds from the professional service agreement with the hospital, they are more than enough to cover my compensation.

Any physician in need of a GI consult needs only to call one number for help. I make it as easy as possible to obtain a consult and never push back, as banal as any consult may seem. I stake my reputation on providing a service that is able, affable, and available. By teaching a consistent message to consulting physicians, I have now effected best evidence-based practices for GI conditions even without engaging me. The most notable examples include antibiotics for variceal bleeding, fluid resuscitation and early feeding for acute pancreatitis, risk stratification for choledocholithiasis, and last but not least, abandoning the inpatient fecal occult blood test.

I am on a first-name basis with every nurse in the hospital now. In exchange for my availability and cell phone number, they place orders for me and protect me from avoidable nuisances.

Many physician groups cover the inpatient service by rotating a week at a time. There can be at times a reluctance to take ownership over a difficult patient and instead a sense of “survival of the call”. However, in my job, “the buck stops with me” even if it is in the form of readmission. For example, I have to take some ownership of indigent patients who cannot easily follow up. Who will remove the stent I placed? How will they pay for Helicobacter pylori eradication or biologic therapy? Another example is diverticular bleeding. While 80% stop on their own, I take extraordinary efforts to endoscopically find and halt the bleeding in order to reduce the recurrence rate. I must find durable solutions because these high-risk patients are my responsibility again when they bounce back to me via the ED.

By way of volume alone, this position has allowed me to develop many therapeutic skills outside of a standard 3-year GI fellowship. While I did only 200 ERCPs in fellowship, I have become proficient in ERCP with around 400 cases per year (mostly native papilla) and have grown comfortable with the needle knife. I have learned endoscopic suturing, luminal stenting, and endoscopic vacuum-assisted therapy for perforation closure independently. Out of necessity, I developed a novel technique in optimizing the use of hemostatic powder by using a bone-wax plug. As endoscopy chief, I can purchase a wide variety of endoscopy equipment, compare brands, and understand the nuances of each.

In conclusion, the dedicated GI hospitalist indirectly improves the efficiency of an outpatient practice, while directly improving inpatient outcomes, collegiality, and even one’s own skills as an endoscopist. While it can be challenging and hectic, with the right mentality towards ownership of the service, it is also an incredibly rewarding position.

Dr. Tau practices with Austin Gastroenterology in Austin, Tex. He disclosed relationships with Cook Medical and Conmed.

Inpatient-only GI hospitalist: Not so fast

By Vaibhav Mehendiratta, MD

Over the past 2 decades, the medical hospitalist system has assumed care of hospitalized patients with the promise of reduced length of stay (LOS) and improved outcomes. Although data on LOS is promising, there have been conflicting results in terms of total medical costs and resource utilization. Inpatient care for patients with complex medical histories often requires regular communication with other subspecialties and outpatient providers to achieve better patient-centered outcomes.

Courtesy Connecticut GI, PC

Providing inpatient gastrointestinal care is complicated. Traditional models rely on physicians trying to balance outpatient obligations with inpatient rounding and procedures, which can result in delayed endoscopy and an inability to participate fully in multidisciplinary rounds and family meetings. The complexity of hospitalized patients often requires a multidisciplinary approach with coordination of care that is hard to accomplish in between seeing outpatients. GI groups, both private practice and academics, need to adopt a strategy for inpatient care that is tailored to the hospital system in which they operate.

As one of the largest private practice groups in New England, our experience can provide a framework for others to follow. We provide inpatient GI care at eight hospitals across northern Connecticut. Our inpatient service at the largest tertiary care hospital is composed of one general gastroenterologist, one advanced endoscopist, one transplant hepatologist, two advanced practitioners, and two fellows in training. Each practitioner provides coverage on a rotating basis, typically 1 week at a time every 4-8 weeks. This model also offers flexibility, such that we can typically accommodate urgent outpatient endoscopy for patients who may otherwise require inpatient care. Coverage at the other seven hospitals is tailored to local needs and ranges from half-day to whole-day coverage by general gastroenterologists and advanced practitioners. We believe that our model is financially viable and, based on our experience, inpatient relative value units generated are quite similar to a typical day in outpatient GI practice.

Inpatient GI care accounts for a substantial portion of overall inpatient care in the United States. Endoscopy delays have been the focus of many research articles looking at inpatient GI care. The delays are caused by many factors, including endoscopy unit/staff availability, anesthesia availability, and patient factors. While having a dedicated inpatient GI Hospitalist offers the potential to streamline access for hospital consultations and endoscopy, an exclusive inpatient GI hospitalist may be less familiar with a patient’s chronic GI illness and have different (and perhaps, conflicting) priorities regarding a patient’s care. Having incomplete access to outpatient records or less familiarity with the intricacies of outpatient care could also lead to duplication of work and increase the number of inpatient procedures that may have otherwise been deferred to the outpatient setting.

Additionally, with physician burnout on the rise and particularly in the inpatient setting, one must question the sustainability of an exclusively inpatient GI practice. That is, the hours and demands of inpatient care typically do not allow the quality of life that outpatient care provides. Our model provides time for dedicated inpatient care, while allowing each practitioner ample opportunity to build a robust outpatient practice.

Some health care organizations are adopting an extensivist model to provide comprehensive care to patients with multiple medical problems. Extensivists are outpatient primary care providers who take the time to coordinate with inpatient hospitalists to provide comprehensive care to their patients. Constant contact with outpatient providers during admission is expected to improve patient satisfaction, reduce hospital readmissions, and decrease inpatient resource utilization.

In conclusion, our experience highlights sustained benefits, and distinct advantages, of providing inpatient GI care without a GI hospitalist model. The pendulum in inpatient care keeps swinging and with progress arise new challenges and questions. Close collaboration between gastroenterologists and health systems to develop a program that fits local needs and allows optimal resource allocation will ensure delivery of high-quality inpatient GI care.

Dr. Mehendiratta is a gastroenterologist with Connecticut GI PC, Hartford, and assistant clinical professor in the department of medicine at the University of Connecticut, Farmington. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Dear colleagues and friends,

After an excellent debate on the future of telemedicine in GI in our most recent Perspectives column, we continue to explore changes in the way we traditionally provide care. In this issue, we discuss the GI hospitalist service, a relatively new but growing model of providing inpatient care. Is this the new ideal, allowing for more efficient care? Or are traditional or alternative models more appropriate? As with most things, the answer often lies somewhere in the middle, driven by local needs and infrastructure. Dr. Tau and Dr. Mehendiratta explore the pros and cons of these different approaches to providing inpatient GI care. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences on the AGA Community forum and by email ([email protected]).

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is an assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

The dedicated GI hospitalist: Taking ownership not ‘call’

By J. Andy Tau, MD

In my experience, a GI hospitalist provides mutual benefit to patients, employers, and consulting physicians. The patient benefits from more expedient consultations and expert endoscopic therapy, which translates to shorter hospitalizations and improved outcomes. The employer enjoys financial benefits as busy outpatient providers can stay busy without interruption. Consulting physicians enjoy having to only call a single phone number for trusted help from a familiar physician who does not rotate off service. Personally, the position provides the volume to develop valuable therapeutic endoscopy skills and techniques. With one stable physician at the helm, a sense of ownership can develop, rather than a sense of survival until “call” is over.

As a full-time GI hospitalist for a large single-specialty group, I provide inpatient GI and hepatology consultation from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday-Friday. I do not rotate off service. I cover three hospitals with a total of 1,000 beds with two advanced practice providers and one part-time physician. Except for endoscopic ultrasound, I perform all other endoscopic procedures. The census is usually 25-35 with an average of 10-15 new consults per day.

The most important benefit of a dedicated GI hospitalist is providing expedited consultation and expert endoscopy for patients. I can offer emergent (<6 hour) endoscopy for any patient. An esophageal food impaction is usually resolved within an hour of arrival to the ED during the day. I can help a surgeon intraoperatively on very short notice. As for acute GI bleeding cases, I oversee resuscitative efforts, while the endoscopy team prepares my preferred endoscopic equipment, eliminating surprises and delays before endoscopy. I have developed an expertise in hemostasis and managing esophageal perforations, along with a risk tolerance that cannot be matured in any setting other than daily emergency.

I have enacted evidence-based protocols for GI bleeding, iron-deficiency anemia, colonic pseudo-obstruction, pancreatitis, and liver decompensation, which internists have adopted over time, reducing phone calls and delays in prep or resuscitation.

While the day is unstructured and filled with interruptions, it is also very flexible. As opposed to the set time intervals of an outpatient clinic visit, I can spend an hour in a palliative care meeting or revisit high-risk patients multiple times a day to detect pending deterioration. Combined endoscopic and surgical cases are logistically easy to schedule given my flexibility. For example, patients with choledocholithiasis often can have a combined cholecystectomy and supine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the OR, shaving a day off admission.

My employer benefits financially as the outpatient doctors can stay busy without interruption from the hospital. With secure group messaging, we are able to make joint decisions and arrange close follow up. The relative value units earned from the hospital are high. Combined with proceeds from the professional service agreement with the hospital, they are more than enough to cover my compensation.

Any physician in need of a GI consult needs only to call one number for help. I make it as easy as possible to obtain a consult and never push back, as banal as any consult may seem. I stake my reputation on providing a service that is able, affable, and available. By teaching a consistent message to consulting physicians, I have now effected best evidence-based practices for GI conditions even without engaging me. The most notable examples include antibiotics for variceal bleeding, fluid resuscitation and early feeding for acute pancreatitis, risk stratification for choledocholithiasis, and last but not least, abandoning the inpatient fecal occult blood test.

I am on a first-name basis with every nurse in the hospital now. In exchange for my availability and cell phone number, they place orders for me and protect me from avoidable nuisances.

Many physician groups cover the inpatient service by rotating a week at a time. There can be at times a reluctance to take ownership over a difficult patient and instead a sense of “survival of the call”. However, in my job, “the buck stops with me” even if it is in the form of readmission. For example, I have to take some ownership of indigent patients who cannot easily follow up. Who will remove the stent I placed? How will they pay for Helicobacter pylori eradication or biologic therapy? Another example is diverticular bleeding. While 80% stop on their own, I take extraordinary efforts to endoscopically find and halt the bleeding in order to reduce the recurrence rate. I must find durable solutions because these high-risk patients are my responsibility again when they bounce back to me via the ED.

By way of volume alone, this position has allowed me to develop many therapeutic skills outside of a standard 3-year GI fellowship. While I did only 200 ERCPs in fellowship, I have become proficient in ERCP with around 400 cases per year (mostly native papilla) and have grown comfortable with the needle knife. I have learned endoscopic suturing, luminal stenting, and endoscopic vacuum-assisted therapy for perforation closure independently. Out of necessity, I developed a novel technique in optimizing the use of hemostatic powder by using a bone-wax plug. As endoscopy chief, I can purchase a wide variety of endoscopy equipment, compare brands, and understand the nuances of each.

In conclusion, the dedicated GI hospitalist indirectly improves the efficiency of an outpatient practice, while directly improving inpatient outcomes, collegiality, and even one’s own skills as an endoscopist. While it can be challenging and hectic, with the right mentality towards ownership of the service, it is also an incredibly rewarding position.

Dr. Tau practices with Austin Gastroenterology in Austin, Tex. He disclosed relationships with Cook Medical and Conmed.

Inpatient-only GI hospitalist: Not so fast

By Vaibhav Mehendiratta, MD

Over the past 2 decades, the medical hospitalist system has assumed care of hospitalized patients with the promise of reduced length of stay (LOS) and improved outcomes. Although data on LOS is promising, there have been conflicting results in terms of total medical costs and resource utilization. Inpatient care for patients with complex medical histories often requires regular communication with other subspecialties and outpatient providers to achieve better patient-centered outcomes.

Courtesy Connecticut GI, PC

Providing inpatient gastrointestinal care is complicated. Traditional models rely on physicians trying to balance outpatient obligations with inpatient rounding and procedures, which can result in delayed endoscopy and an inability to participate fully in multidisciplinary rounds and family meetings. The complexity of hospitalized patients often requires a multidisciplinary approach with coordination of care that is hard to accomplish in between seeing outpatients. GI groups, both private practice and academics, need to adopt a strategy for inpatient care that is tailored to the hospital system in which they operate.

As one of the largest private practice groups in New England, our experience can provide a framework for others to follow. We provide inpatient GI care at eight hospitals across northern Connecticut. Our inpatient service at the largest tertiary care hospital is composed of one general gastroenterologist, one advanced endoscopist, one transplant hepatologist, two advanced practitioners, and two fellows in training. Each practitioner provides coverage on a rotating basis, typically 1 week at a time every 4-8 weeks. This model also offers flexibility, such that we can typically accommodate urgent outpatient endoscopy for patients who may otherwise require inpatient care. Coverage at the other seven hospitals is tailored to local needs and ranges from half-day to whole-day coverage by general gastroenterologists and advanced practitioners. We believe that our model is financially viable and, based on our experience, inpatient relative value units generated are quite similar to a typical day in outpatient GI practice.

Inpatient GI care accounts for a substantial portion of overall inpatient care in the United States. Endoscopy delays have been the focus of many research articles looking at inpatient GI care. The delays are caused by many factors, including endoscopy unit/staff availability, anesthesia availability, and patient factors. While having a dedicated inpatient GI Hospitalist offers the potential to streamline access for hospital consultations and endoscopy, an exclusive inpatient GI hospitalist may be less familiar with a patient’s chronic GI illness and have different (and perhaps, conflicting) priorities regarding a patient’s care. Having incomplete access to outpatient records or less familiarity with the intricacies of outpatient care could also lead to duplication of work and increase the number of inpatient procedures that may have otherwise been deferred to the outpatient setting.

Additionally, with physician burnout on the rise and particularly in the inpatient setting, one must question the sustainability of an exclusively inpatient GI practice. That is, the hours and demands of inpatient care typically do not allow the quality of life that outpatient care provides. Our model provides time for dedicated inpatient care, while allowing each practitioner ample opportunity to build a robust outpatient practice.

Some health care organizations are adopting an extensivist model to provide comprehensive care to patients with multiple medical problems. Extensivists are outpatient primary care providers who take the time to coordinate with inpatient hospitalists to provide comprehensive care to their patients. Constant contact with outpatient providers during admission is expected to improve patient satisfaction, reduce hospital readmissions, and decrease inpatient resource utilization.

In conclusion, our experience highlights sustained benefits, and distinct advantages, of providing inpatient GI care without a GI hospitalist model. The pendulum in inpatient care keeps swinging and with progress arise new challenges and questions. Close collaboration between gastroenterologists and health systems to develop a program that fits local needs and allows optimal resource allocation will ensure delivery of high-quality inpatient GI care.

Dr. Mehendiratta is a gastroenterologist with Connecticut GI PC, Hartford, and assistant clinical professor in the department of medicine at the University of Connecticut, Farmington. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A Chicago-based medical oncologist has been charged with insider trading by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a Dec. 20 press release issued by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Daniel V.T. Catenacci, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, is alleged to have used confidential information to purchase shares of California-based biotechnology company Five Prime Therapeutics before it publicly announced positive results from a clinical trial of bemarituzumab, an experimental cancer drug.

Dr. Catenacci served as the lead investigator of the clinical trial that evaluated bemarituzumab. The drug, which earned breakthrough therapy designation from the Food and Drug Administration earlier this year, is designed to target fibroblast growth factor receptor 2b (FGFR2b), overexpressed in about 30% of patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer and other solid tumors.

Bemarituzumab is being positioned as a potential frontline therapy for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. A recent phase 2 trial found that adding bemarituzumab to chemotherapy in this patient population improved survival over chemotherapy alone.

According to the criminal information, filed on Dec. 17 in U.S. District Court in Chicago, the charges state that, in November 2020, Dr. Catenacci “used material, non-public information about the trial results to make more than $134,000 in illegal profits from the purchase and sale of securities in the company.”

More specifically, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Dr. Catenacci received confidential information about the company and its positive clinical trial results through his position as principal investigator. Dr. Catenacci then purchased almost 8,800 shares of Five Prime Therapeutics before the company announced the positive results. Dr. Catenacci subsequently sold those shares shortly after the trial results were announced. In the interim, the shares tripled or quadrupled in value.

He has been charged with one count of securities fraud, punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison. Arraignment in federal court in Chicago has yet to be scheduled.

In addition, the federal complaint alleges that Dr. Catenacci violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. According to a press release, “Catenacci has agreed to be permanently enjoined from violations of these provisions, and to pay a civil penalty in an amount to be determined by the court later.”

Erin E. Schneider, regional director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office, stated in the press release that clinical drug trials typically involve sensitive and valuable information about the viability of an experimental drug.

“As alleged in our complaint, Catenacci was required to safeguard the material nonpublic information he learned about Five Prime’s clinical trial, and not trade on it,” said Mr. Schneider.

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

A Chicago-based medical oncologist has been charged with insider trading by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a Dec. 20 press release issued by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Daniel V.T. Catenacci, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, is alleged to have used confidential information to purchase shares of California-based biotechnology company Five Prime Therapeutics before it publicly announced positive results from a clinical trial of bemarituzumab, an experimental cancer drug.

Dr. Catenacci served as the lead investigator of the clinical trial that evaluated bemarituzumab. The drug, which earned breakthrough therapy designation from the Food and Drug Administration earlier this year, is designed to target fibroblast growth factor receptor 2b (FGFR2b), overexpressed in about 30% of patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer and other solid tumors.

Bemarituzumab is being positioned as a potential frontline therapy for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. A recent phase 2 trial found that adding bemarituzumab to chemotherapy in this patient population improved survival over chemotherapy alone.

According to the criminal information, filed on Dec. 17 in U.S. District Court in Chicago, the charges state that, in November 2020, Dr. Catenacci “used material, non-public information about the trial results to make more than $134,000 in illegal profits from the purchase and sale of securities in the company.”

More specifically, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Dr. Catenacci received confidential information about the company and its positive clinical trial results through his position as principal investigator. Dr. Catenacci then purchased almost 8,800 shares of Five Prime Therapeutics before the company announced the positive results. Dr. Catenacci subsequently sold those shares shortly after the trial results were announced. In the interim, the shares tripled or quadrupled in value.

He has been charged with one count of securities fraud, punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison. Arraignment in federal court in Chicago has yet to be scheduled.

In addition, the federal complaint alleges that Dr. Catenacci violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. According to a press release, “Catenacci has agreed to be permanently enjoined from violations of these provisions, and to pay a civil penalty in an amount to be determined by the court later.”

Erin E. Schneider, regional director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office, stated in the press release that clinical drug trials typically involve sensitive and valuable information about the viability of an experimental drug.

“As alleged in our complaint, Catenacci was required to safeguard the material nonpublic information he learned about Five Prime’s clinical trial, and not trade on it,” said Mr. Schneider.

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

A Chicago-based medical oncologist has been charged with insider trading by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a Dec. 20 press release issued by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Daniel V.T. Catenacci, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, is alleged to have used confidential information to purchase shares of California-based biotechnology company Five Prime Therapeutics before it publicly announced positive results from a clinical trial of bemarituzumab, an experimental cancer drug.

Dr. Catenacci served as the lead investigator of the clinical trial that evaluated bemarituzumab. The drug, which earned breakthrough therapy designation from the Food and Drug Administration earlier this year, is designed to target fibroblast growth factor receptor 2b (FGFR2b), overexpressed in about 30% of patients with HER2-negative gastric cancer and other solid tumors.

Bemarituzumab is being positioned as a potential frontline therapy for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. A recent phase 2 trial found that adding bemarituzumab to chemotherapy in this patient population improved survival over chemotherapy alone.

According to the criminal information, filed on Dec. 17 in U.S. District Court in Chicago, the charges state that, in November 2020, Dr. Catenacci “used material, non-public information about the trial results to make more than $134,000 in illegal profits from the purchase and sale of securities in the company.”

More specifically, the SEC’s complaint alleges that Dr. Catenacci received confidential information about the company and its positive clinical trial results through his position as principal investigator. Dr. Catenacci then purchased almost 8,800 shares of Five Prime Therapeutics before the company announced the positive results. Dr. Catenacci subsequently sold those shares shortly after the trial results were announced. In the interim, the shares tripled or quadrupled in value.

He has been charged with one count of securities fraud, punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison. Arraignment in federal court in Chicago has yet to be scheduled.

In addition, the federal complaint alleges that Dr. Catenacci violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. According to a press release, “Catenacci has agreed to be permanently enjoined from violations of these provisions, and to pay a civil penalty in an amount to be determined by the court later.”

Erin E. Schneider, regional director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office, stated in the press release that clinical drug trials typically involve sensitive and valuable information about the viability of an experimental drug.

“As alleged in our complaint, Catenacci was required to safeguard the material nonpublic information he learned about Five Prime’s clinical trial, and not trade on it,” said Mr. Schneider.

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

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

A. For women with extremely dense breasts who are not otherwise at increased risk for breast cancer, screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is preferred, plus her mammogram or tomosynthesis. If MRI is not an option, consider ultrasonography or contrast-enhanced mammography. 

The same screening considerations apply to women with heterogeneously dense breasts; however, there is limited capacity for MRI or even ultrasound screening at many facilities. Research supports MRI in dense breasts, and abbreviated, lower-cost protocols have been validated that address some of the barriers to MRI.¹ Although not yet widely available, abbreviated MRI will likely have a greater role in screening women with dense breasts who are not high risk. It is important to note that preauthorization from insurance may be required for screening MRI, and in most US states, deductibles and copays apply.

The exam

Contrast-enhanced MRI requires IV injection of gadolinium-based contrast to look at the anatomy and blood flow patterns of the breast tissue. The patient lies face down with the breasts placed in two rectangular openings, or “coils.” The exam takes place inside the tunnel of the scanner, with the head facing out.After initial images are obtained, the contrast agent is injected into a vein in the arm, and additional images are taken, which will show areas of enhancement. The exam takes about 20 to 40 minutes. An “abbreviated” MRI can be performed for screening in some centers, which uses fewer sequences and takes about 10 minutes. 

Benefits

At least 40% of cancers are missed on mammography in women with dense breasts.² MRI is the most widely studied technique using a contrast agent, and it produces the highest additional cancer detection of all the supplemental technologies to date, yielding, in the first year, 10-16 additional cancers per 1,000 women screened after mammography/tomosynthesis (reviewed in Berg et al.³). The cancer-detection benefit is seen across all breast density categories, even among average-risk women.⁴ There is no ionizing radiation, and it has been shown to reduce the rate of interval cancers (those detected due to symptoms after a negative screening mammogram), as well as the rate of late-stage disease. Axillary lymph nodes can be examined at the same screening exam. 

While tomosynthesis improves cancer detection in women with fatty breasts, scattered fibroglandular breast tissue, and heterogeneously dense breasts, it does not significantly improve cancer detection in women with extremely dense breasts.^5,6 Current American Cancer Society and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend annual screening MRI for women at high risk for breast cancer (regardless of breast density); however, increasingly, research supports the effectiveness of MRI in women with dense breasts who are otherwise considered average risk. A large randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands compared outcomes in women with extremely dense breasts invited to have screening MRI after negative mammography to those assigned to continue receiving screening mammography only. The incremental cancer detection rate was 16.5 per 1,000 (79/4,783) women screened with MRI in the first round⁷ and 6 per 1,000 women screened in the second round 2 years later.⁸ The interval cancer rate was 0.8 per 1,000 (4/4,783) women screened with MRI, compared with 4.9 per 1,000 (16/3,278) women who declined MRI and received mammography only.⁷ 

Screening ultrasound will show up to 3 additional cancers per 1,000 women screened after mammography/tomosynthesis (reviewed in Vourtsis and Berg⁹ and Berg and Vourtsis¹⁰), far lower than the added cancer-detection rate of MRI. Consider screening ultrasound for women who cannot tolerate or access screening MRI.¹¹ Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) uses iodinated contrast (as in computed tomography). CEM is not widely available but appears to show cancer-detection similar to MRI. For further discussion, see Berg et al’s 2021 review.³ 

The FIGURE shows an example of an invasive cancer depicted on contrast-enhanced MRI in a 53-year-old woman with dense breasts and a family history of breast cancer that was not visible on tomosynthesis, even in retrospect, due to masking by dense tissue. 

Considerations

Breast MRI increases callbacks even after mammography and ultrasound; however, such false alarms are reduced in subsequent screening rounds. MRI cannot be performed in women who have certain metal implants— some pacemakers or spinal fixation rods—and is not recommended for pregnant women. Claustrophobia may be an issue for some women. MRI is expensive and requires IV contrast. Gadolinium is known to accumulate in the brain, although the long-term effects of this are unknown and no harm has been shown.●

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

A. For women with extremely dense breasts who are not otherwise at increased risk for breast cancer, screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is preferred, plus her mammogram or tomosynthesis. If MRI is not an option, consider ultrasonography or contrast-enhanced mammography. 

The same screening considerations apply to women with heterogeneously dense breasts; however, there is limited capacity for MRI or even ultrasound screening at many facilities. Research supports MRI in dense breasts, and abbreviated, lower-cost protocols have been validated that address some of the barriers to MRI.¹ Although not yet widely available, abbreviated MRI will likely have a greater role in screening women with dense breasts who are not high risk. It is important to note that preauthorization from insurance may be required for screening MRI, and in most US states, deductibles and copays apply.

The exam

Contrast-enhanced MRI requires IV injection of gadolinium-based contrast to look at the anatomy and blood flow patterns of the breast tissue. The patient lies face down with the breasts placed in two rectangular openings, or “coils.” The exam takes place inside the tunnel of the scanner, with the head facing out.After initial images are obtained, the contrast agent is injected into a vein in the arm, and additional images are taken, which will show areas of enhancement. The exam takes about 20 to 40 minutes. An “abbreviated” MRI can be performed for screening in some centers, which uses fewer sequences and takes about 10 minutes. 

Benefits

At least 40% of cancers are missed on mammography in women with dense breasts.² MRI is the most widely studied technique using a contrast agent, and it produces the highest additional cancer detection of all the supplemental technologies to date, yielding, in the first year, 10-16 additional cancers per 1,000 women screened after mammography/tomosynthesis (reviewed in Berg et al.³). The cancer-detection benefit is seen across all breast density categories, even among average-risk women.⁴ There is no ionizing radiation, and it has been shown to reduce the rate of interval cancers (those detected due to symptoms after a negative screening mammogram), as well as the rate of late-stage disease. Axillary lymph nodes can be examined at the same screening exam. 

While tomosynthesis improves cancer detection in women with fatty breasts, scattered fibroglandular breast tissue, and heterogeneously dense breasts, it does not significantly improve cancer detection in women with extremely dense breasts.^5,6 Current American Cancer Society and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend annual screening MRI for women at high risk for breast cancer (regardless of breast density); however, increasingly, research supports the effectiveness of MRI in women with dense breasts who are otherwise considered average risk. A large randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands compared outcomes in women with extremely dense breasts invited to have screening MRI after negative mammography to those assigned to continue receiving screening mammography only. The incremental cancer detection rate was 16.5 per 1,000 (79/4,783) women screened with MRI in the first round⁷ and 6 per 1,000 women screened in the second round 2 years later.⁸ The interval cancer rate was 0.8 per 1,000 (4/4,783) women screened with MRI, compared with 4.9 per 1,000 (16/3,278) women who declined MRI and received mammography only.⁷ 

Screening ultrasound will show up to 3 additional cancers per 1,000 women screened after mammography/tomosynthesis (reviewed in Vourtsis and Berg⁹ and Berg and Vourtsis¹⁰), far lower than the added cancer-detection rate of MRI. Consider screening ultrasound for women who cannot tolerate or access screening MRI.¹¹ Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) uses iodinated contrast (as in computed tomography). CEM is not widely available but appears to show cancer-detection similar to MRI. For further discussion, see Berg et al’s 2021 review.³ 

The FIGURE shows an example of an invasive cancer depicted on contrast-enhanced MRI in a 53-year-old woman with dense breasts and a family history of breast cancer that was not visible on tomosynthesis, even in retrospect, due to masking by dense tissue. 

Considerations

Breast MRI increases callbacks even after mammography and ultrasound; however, such false alarms are reduced in subsequent screening rounds. MRI cannot be performed in women who have certain metal implants— some pacemakers or spinal fixation rods—and is not recommended for pregnant women. Claustrophobia may be an issue for some women. MRI is expensive and requires IV contrast. Gadolinium is known to accumulate in the brain, although the long-term effects of this are unknown and no harm has been shown.●

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

A. For women with extremely dense breasts who are not otherwise at increased risk for breast cancer, screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is preferred, plus her mammogram or tomosynthesis. If MRI is not an option, consider ultrasonography or contrast-enhanced mammography. 

The same screening considerations apply to women with heterogeneously dense breasts; however, there is limited capacity for MRI or even ultrasound screening at many facilities. Research supports MRI in dense breasts, and abbreviated, lower-cost protocols have been validated that address some of the barriers to MRI.¹ Although not yet widely available, abbreviated MRI will likely have a greater role in screening women with dense breasts who are not high risk. It is important to note that preauthorization from insurance may be required for screening MRI, and in most US states, deductibles and copays apply.

The exam

Contrast-enhanced MRI requires IV injection of gadolinium-based contrast to look at the anatomy and blood flow patterns of the breast tissue. The patient lies face down with the breasts placed in two rectangular openings, or “coils.” The exam takes place inside the tunnel of the scanner, with the head facing out.After initial images are obtained, the contrast agent is injected into a vein in the arm, and additional images are taken, which will show areas of enhancement. The exam takes about 20 to 40 minutes. An “abbreviated” MRI can be performed for screening in some centers, which uses fewer sequences and takes about 10 minutes. 

Benefits

At least 40% of cancers are missed on mammography in women with dense breasts.² MRI is the most widely studied technique using a contrast agent, and it produces the highest additional cancer detection of all the supplemental technologies to date, yielding, in the first year, 10-16 additional cancers per 1,000 women screened after mammography/tomosynthesis (reviewed in Berg et al.³). The cancer-detection benefit is seen across all breast density categories, even among average-risk women.⁴ There is no ionizing radiation, and it has been shown to reduce the rate of interval cancers (those detected due to symptoms after a negative screening mammogram), as well as the rate of late-stage disease. Axillary lymph nodes can be examined at the same screening exam. 

While tomosynthesis improves cancer detection in women with fatty breasts, scattered fibroglandular breast tissue, and heterogeneously dense breasts, it does not significantly improve cancer detection in women with extremely dense breasts.^5,6 Current American Cancer Society and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend annual screening MRI for women at high risk for breast cancer (regardless of breast density); however, increasingly, research supports the effectiveness of MRI in women with dense breasts who are otherwise considered average risk. A large randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands compared outcomes in women with extremely dense breasts invited to have screening MRI after negative mammography to those assigned to continue receiving screening mammography only. The incremental cancer detection rate was 16.5 per 1,000 (79/4,783) women screened with MRI in the first round⁷ and 6 per 1,000 women screened in the second round 2 years later.⁸ The interval cancer rate was 0.8 per 1,000 (4/4,783) women screened with MRI, compared with 4.9 per 1,000 (16/3,278) women who declined MRI and received mammography only.⁷ 

Screening ultrasound will show up to 3 additional cancers per 1,000 women screened after mammography/tomosynthesis (reviewed in Vourtsis and Berg⁹ and Berg and Vourtsis¹⁰), far lower than the added cancer-detection rate of MRI. Consider screening ultrasound for women who cannot tolerate or access screening MRI.¹¹ Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) uses iodinated contrast (as in computed tomography). CEM is not widely available but appears to show cancer-detection similar to MRI. For further discussion, see Berg et al’s 2021 review.³ 

The FIGURE shows an example of an invasive cancer depicted on contrast-enhanced MRI in a 53-year-old woman with dense breasts and a family history of breast cancer that was not visible on tomosynthesis, even in retrospect, due to masking by dense tissue. 

Considerations

Breast MRI increases callbacks even after mammography and ultrasound; however, such false alarms are reduced in subsequent screening rounds. MRI cannot be performed in women who have certain metal implants— some pacemakers or spinal fixation rods—and is not recommended for pregnant women. Claustrophobia may be an issue for some women. MRI is expensive and requires IV contrast. Gadolinium is known to accumulate in the brain, although the long-term effects of this are unknown and no harm has been shown.●

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

Despite the best efforts of my institution’s spam filter, I’ve realized that I spend at least 4 minutes every day of the week removing junk email from my in basket: EMR vendors, predatory journals trying to lure me into paying their outrageous publication fees, people who want to help me with my billing software (evidently that .edu extension hasn’t clicked for them yet), headhunters trying to fill specialty positions in other states, market researchers offering a gift card for 40 minutes filling out a survey.

If you do the math, 4 minutes daily is 1,460 minutes per year. That’s an entire day of my life lost each year to this useless nonsense, which I never agreed to receive in the first place. Now multiply that by the 22 million health care workers in the United States, or even just by the 985,000 licensed physicians in this country. Then factor in the $638 per hour in gross revenue generated by the average primary care physician, as a conservative, well-documented value.

By my reckoning, these bozos owe the United States alone over $15 billion in lost GDP each year.

So why don’t we shut it down!? The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 attempted to at least mitigate the problem. It applies only to commercial entities (I know, I’d love to report some political groups, too). To avoid violating the law and risking fines of up to $16,000 per individual email, senders must:

• Not use misleading header info (including domain name and email address)
• Not use deceptive subject lines
• Clearly label the email as an ad
• Give an actual physical address of the sender
• Tell recipients how to opt out of future emails
• Honor opt-out requests within 10 business days
• Monitor the activities of any subcontractor sending email on their behalf

I can say with certainty that much of the trash in my inbox violates at least one of these. But that doesn’t matter if there is not an efficient way to report the violators and ensure that they’ll be tracked down. Hard enough if they live here, impossible if the email is routed from overseas, as much of it clearly is.

If you receive email in violation of the act, experts recommend that you write down the email address and the business name of the sender, fill out a complaint form on the Federal Trade Commission website, or send an email to [email protected], then send an email to your Internet service provider’s abuse desk. If you’re not working within a big institution like mine that has hot and cold running IT personnel that operate their own abuse prevention office, the address you’ll need is likely abuse@domain_name or postmaster@domain_name. Just hitting the spam button at the top of your browser/email software may do the trick. There’s more good advice at the FTC’s consumer spam page.

The people not violating the law, though, are wasting my time every bit as flagrantly. How are they getting my email address in the first place?

The answer came, ironically, to my email inbox in the form of one of those emails that did indeed violate the law.

Dr. Hitchcock is assistant professor, department of radiation oncology, at the University of Florida, Gainesville. She reported receiving research grant money from Merck. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the best efforts of my institution’s spam filter, I’ve realized that I spend at least 4 minutes every day of the week removing junk email from my in basket: EMR vendors, predatory journals trying to lure me into paying their outrageous publication fees, people who want to help me with my billing software (evidently that .edu extension hasn’t clicked for them yet), headhunters trying to fill specialty positions in other states, market researchers offering a gift card for 40 minutes filling out a survey.

If you do the math, 4 minutes daily is 1,460 minutes per year. That’s an entire day of my life lost each year to this useless nonsense, which I never agreed to receive in the first place. Now multiply that by the 22 million health care workers in the United States, or even just by the 985,000 licensed physicians in this country. Then factor in the $638 per hour in gross revenue generated by the average primary care physician, as a conservative, well-documented value.

By my reckoning, these bozos owe the United States alone over $15 billion in lost GDP each year.

So why don’t we shut it down!? The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 attempted to at least mitigate the problem. It applies only to commercial entities (I know, I’d love to report some political groups, too). To avoid violating the law and risking fines of up to $16,000 per individual email, senders must:

• Not use misleading header info (including domain name and email address)
• Not use deceptive subject lines
• Clearly label the email as an ad
• Give an actual physical address of the sender
• Tell recipients how to opt out of future emails
• Honor opt-out requests within 10 business days
• Monitor the activities of any subcontractor sending email on their behalf

I can say with certainty that much of the trash in my inbox violates at least one of these. But that doesn’t matter if there is not an efficient way to report the violators and ensure that they’ll be tracked down. Hard enough if they live here, impossible if the email is routed from overseas, as much of it clearly is.

If you receive email in violation of the act, experts recommend that you write down the email address and the business name of the sender, fill out a complaint form on the Federal Trade Commission website, or send an email to [email protected], then send an email to your Internet service provider’s abuse desk. If you’re not working within a big institution like mine that has hot and cold running IT personnel that operate their own abuse prevention office, the address you’ll need is likely abuse@domain_name or postmaster@domain_name. Just hitting the spam button at the top of your browser/email software may do the trick. There’s more good advice at the FTC’s consumer spam page.

The people not violating the law, though, are wasting my time every bit as flagrantly. How are they getting my email address in the first place?

The answer came, ironically, to my email inbox in the form of one of those emails that did indeed violate the law.

Dr. Hitchcock is assistant professor, department of radiation oncology, at the University of Florida, Gainesville. She reported receiving research grant money from Merck. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the best efforts of my institution’s spam filter, I’ve realized that I spend at least 4 minutes every day of the week removing junk email from my in basket: EMR vendors, predatory journals trying to lure me into paying their outrageous publication fees, people who want to help me with my billing software (evidently that .edu extension hasn’t clicked for them yet), headhunters trying to fill specialty positions in other states, market researchers offering a gift card for 40 minutes filling out a survey.

If you do the math, 4 minutes daily is 1,460 minutes per year. That’s an entire day of my life lost each year to this useless nonsense, which I never agreed to receive in the first place. Now multiply that by the 22 million health care workers in the United States, or even just by the 985,000 licensed physicians in this country. Then factor in the $638 per hour in gross revenue generated by the average primary care physician, as a conservative, well-documented value.

By my reckoning, these bozos owe the United States alone over $15 billion in lost GDP each year.

So why don’t we shut it down!? The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 attempted to at least mitigate the problem. It applies only to commercial entities (I know, I’d love to report some political groups, too). To avoid violating the law and risking fines of up to $16,000 per individual email, senders must:

• Not use misleading header info (including domain name and email address)
• Not use deceptive subject lines
• Clearly label the email as an ad
• Give an actual physical address of the sender
• Tell recipients how to opt out of future emails
• Honor opt-out requests within 10 business days
• Monitor the activities of any subcontractor sending email on their behalf

I can say with certainty that much of the trash in my inbox violates at least one of these. But that doesn’t matter if there is not an efficient way to report the violators and ensure that they’ll be tracked down. Hard enough if they live here, impossible if the email is routed from overseas, as much of it clearly is.

If you receive email in violation of the act, experts recommend that you write down the email address and the business name of the sender, fill out a complaint form on the Federal Trade Commission website, or send an email to [email protected], then send an email to your Internet service provider’s abuse desk. If you’re not working within a big institution like mine that has hot and cold running IT personnel that operate their own abuse prevention office, the address you’ll need is likely abuse@domain_name or postmaster@domain_name. Just hitting the spam button at the top of your browser/email software may do the trick. There’s more good advice at the FTC’s consumer spam page.

The people not violating the law, though, are wasting my time every bit as flagrantly. How are they getting my email address in the first place?

The answer came, ironically, to my email inbox in the form of one of those emails that did indeed violate the law.

Dr. Hitchcock is assistant professor, department of radiation oncology, at the University of Florida, Gainesville. She reported receiving research grant money from Merck. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Large, physician-owned group practices are gaining ground as a popular form of practice, even as the number of physicians in solo and small practices declines, and employment maintains its appeal.

Ridofranz/Thinkstock

As physicians shift from owning private practices to employment in hospital systems, this countertrend is also taking place. Large group practices are growing in number, even as solo and small practices are in decline.

Do large, physician-owned groups bring benefits that beat employment? And how do large groups compare with smaller practices and new opportunities, such as private equity? You’ll find some answers here.
 

Working in large group practices

Large group practices with 50 or more physicians are enjoying a renaissance, even though physicians are still streaming into hospital systems. The share of physicians in large practices increased from 14.7% in 2018 to 17.2% in 2020, the largest 2-year change for this group, according to the American Medical Association.

“Physicians expect that large groups will treat them better than hospitals do,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of Permanente Medical Group, the nation’s largest physicians’ group. 

Compared with hospitals, “doctors would prefer working in a group practice, if all other things are equal,” says Dr. Pearl, who is now a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical School.

Large group practices can include both multispecialty groups and single-specialty groups. Groups in specialties like urology, orthopedics, and oncology have been growing in recent years, according to Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group in Virginia Beach, Va.

A group practice could also be an independent physicians association – a federation of small practices that share functions like negotiations with insurers and management. Physicians can also form larger groups for single purposes like running an accountable care organization.

Some large group practices can have a mix of partners and employees. In these groups, “some doctors either don’t want a partnership or aren’t offered one,” says Nathan Miller, CEO of the Medicus Firm, a physician recruitment company in Dallas. The AMA reports that about 10% of physicians are employees of large practices.

“Large groups like the Permanente Medical Group are not partnerships,” Dr. Pearl says. “They tend to be a corporation with a board of directors, and all the physicians are employees, but it’s a physician-led organization.”

Doctors in these groups can enjoy a great deal of control. While Permanente Medical Group is exclusively affiliated with Kaiser, which runs hospitals and an HMO, the group is an independent corporation run by its doctors, who are both shareholders and employees, Dr. Pearl says.

The Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic are not medical groups in the strict sense of the word. They describe themselves as academic medical centers, but Dr. Pearl says, “Doctors have a tremendous amount of control there, particularly those in the most remunerative specialties.”

Pros of large groups 

Group practices are able to focus more on the physician participants’ needs and priorities, says Mr. Mertz. “In a hospital-based organization, physicians’ needs have to compete with the needs of the hospital. … In a large group, it can be easier to get policies changed and order equipment.”

However, for many physicians, their primary reason for joining a large group is having negotiating leverage with health insurance plans, and this leverage seems even more important today. It typically results in higher reimbursements, which could translate into higher pay. The higher practice income, however, could be negated by higher administrative overhead, which is endemic in large organizations.

Mr. Mertz says large groups also have the resources to recruit new doctors. Small practices, in contrast, often decide not to grow. The practice would at first need to guarantee the salary of a new partner, which could require existing partners to take a pay cut, which they often don’t want to do. “They’ll decide to ride the practice into the ground,” which means closing it down when they retire, he says.

Cons of large groups

One individual doctor may have relatively little input in decision-making in a large group, and strong leadership may be lacking. One study examining the pros and cons of large group practices found that lack of physician cooperation, investment, and leadership were the most frequently cited barriers in large groups.

Physicians in large groups can also divide into competing factions. Mr. Mertz says rifts are more likely to take place in multispecialty groups, where higher-reimbursed proceduralists resent having to financially support lower-reimbursed primary care physicians. But it’s rare that such rifts actually break up the practice, he says.
 

Private practice vs. employment

Even as more physicians enter large groups, physicians continue to flee private practice in general. In 2020, the AMA found that the number of physicians in private practices had dropped nearly 5 percentage points since 2018, the largest 2-year drop recorded by the AMA.

The hardest hit are small groups of 10 physicians or fewer, once the backbone of U.S. medicine. A 2020 survey found that 53.7% of physicians still work in small practices of 10 or fewer physicians, compared with 61.4% in 2012.

Private practices tend to be partnerships, but younger physicians, for their part, often don’t want to become a partner. In a 2016 survey, only 22% of medical residents surveyed said they anticipate owning a stake in a practice someday.

What’s good about private practice?

The obvious advantage of private practice is having control. Physician-owners can choose staff, oversee finances, and decide on the direction the practice should take. They don’t have to worry about being fired, because the partnership agreement virtually guarantees each doctor’s place in the group.

The atmosphere in a small practice is often more relaxed. “Private practices tend to offer a family-like environment,” Mr. Miller says. Owners of small practices tend to have lower burnout than large practices, a 2018 study found.

Unlike hospital-employed doctors, private practitioners get to keep their ancillary income. “Physicians own the equipment and receive income generated from ancillary services, not just professional fees,” says Mr. Miller.

What’s negative about private practice?

Since small groups have little negotiating power with private payers, they can’t get favorable reimbursement rates. And while partners are protected from being fired, the practice could still go bankrupt.

Running a private practice means putting on an entrepreneurial hat. To develop a strong practice, you need to learn about marketing, finance, IT, contract negotiations, and facility management. “Most young doctors have no interest in this work,” Mr. Mertz says.

Value-based contracting has added another disadvantage for small practices. “It can be harder for small, independent groups to compete,” says Mike Belkin, JD, a divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins, a physician recruitment company based in Dallas. “They don’t have the data and integration of services that are necessary for this.”
 

Employment in hospital systems

More than one-third of all physicians worked for hospitals in 2018, and hospitals’ share has been growing since then. In 2020, for the first time, the AMA found that more than half of all physicians were employed, and employment is mainly a hospital phenomenon.

The trend shows no signs of stopping. In 2019 and 2020, hospitals and other corporate entities acquired 20,900 physician practices, representing 29,800 doctors. “This trend will continue,” Dr. Pearl says. “The bigger will get bigger. It’s all about market control. Everyone wants to be wider, more vertical, and more powerful.”

Pros of hospital employment 

“The advantages of hospital employment are mostly financial,” Mr. Mertz says. Unlike a private practice, “there’s no financial risk to hospital employment because you don’t own it. You won’t be on the tab for any losses.”

“Hospitals usually offer a highly competitive salary with less emphasis on production than in a private practice,” he says. New physicians are typically paid a guaranteed salary in the first 1-3 years of employment.

“You don’t have any management responsibilities, as you would in a practice,” Mr. Mertz says. “The hospital has a professional management team to handle the business side. Most young doctors have no interest in this work.”

“Employed physicians have a built-in referral network at a hospital,” Mr. Miller says. This is especially an advantage for new physicians, who don’t yet have a referral network of their own.”

Cons of hospital employment

Physicians employed by a hospital lack control. “You don’t decide the hours you work, the schedules you follow, and the physical facility you work in, and, for the most part, you don’t pick your staff,” Mr. Mertz says.

Like any big organization, hospitals are bureaucratic. “If you want to purchase a new piece of equipment, your request goes up the chain of command,” Mr. Mertz says. “Your purchase has to fit into the budget.” (This can be the case with large groups, too.)

Many employed doctors chafe under this lack of control. In an earlier survey by Medscape, 45% of employed respondents didn’t like having limited influence in decision-making, and 32% said they had less control over their work or schedule.

It’s no wonder that a large percentage of physicians would rather work in practices than hospitals. According to a 2021 Medicus Firm survey, 23% of physicians are interested in working in hospitals, while 40% would rather work either in multispecialty or single-specialty groups, Mr. Miller reports.
 

Doctors have differing views of hospital employment

New physicians are apt to dismiss any negatives about hospitals. “Lack of autonomy often matters less to younger physicians, who were trained in team-based models,” Mr. Belkin says.

Many young doctors actually like working in a large organization. “Young doctors out of residency are used to having everything at their fingertips – labs and testing is in-house,” Mr. Mertz says.

On the other hand, doctors who were previously self-employed – a group that makes up almost one-third of all hospital-employed doctors – can often be dissatisfied with employment. In a 2014 Medscape survey, 26% of previously self-employed doctors said job satisfaction had not improved with employment.

Mr. Mertz says these doctors remember what it was like to be in charge of a practice. “If you once owned a practice, you can always compare what’s going on now with that experience, and that can make you frustrated.”
 

Hospitals have higher turnover

It’s much easier to leave an organization when you don’t have an ownership stake. The annual physician turnover rate at hospitals is 28%, compared with 7% at medical groups, according to a 2019 report.

Mr. Belkin says changing jobs has become a way of life for many doctors. “Staying at a job for only a few years is no longer a red flag,” he says. “Physicians are exploring different options. They might try group practice and switch to hospitals or vice versa.”

Physicians are now part of a high-turnover culture: Once in a new job, many are already thinking about the next one. A 2018 survey found that 46% of doctors planned to leave their position within 3 years.
 

Private equity ownership of practice

Selling majority control of your practice to a private equity firm is a relatively new phenomenon and accounts for a small share of physicians – just 4% in 2020. This trend was originally limited to certain specialties, such as anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and dermatology, but now many others are courted.

The deals work like this: Physicians sell majority control of their practice to investors in return for shares in the private equity practice, and they become employees of that practice. The private equity firm then adds more physicians to the practice and invests in infrastructure with the intention of selling the practice at a large profit, which is then shared with the original physicians.

Pros of private equity

The original owners of the practice stand to make a substantial profit if they are willing to wait several years for the practice to be built up and sold. “If they are patient, they could earn a bonanza,” Mr. Belkin says.

Private equity investment helps the practice expand. “It’s an alternative to going to the bank and borrowing money,” Mr. Mertz says.

Cons of private equity

Physicians lose control of their practice. A client of Mr. Mertz’s briefly considered a private equity offer and turned it down. “The private equity firm would have veto power over what the doctors wanted to do,” he says.

Mr. Belkin says the selling physicians typically lose income after the sale. “Money they earned from ancillary services now goes to the practice,” Mr. Belkin says. The selling doctors could potentially take up to a 30% cut in their compensation, according to Coker Capital Advisors.

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

Large, physician-owned group practices are gaining ground as a popular form of practice, even as the number of physicians in solo and small practices declines, and employment maintains its appeal.

Ridofranz/Thinkstock

As physicians shift from owning private practices to employment in hospital systems, this countertrend is also taking place. Large group practices are growing in number, even as solo and small practices are in decline.

Do large, physician-owned groups bring benefits that beat employment? And how do large groups compare with smaller practices and new opportunities, such as private equity? You’ll find some answers here.
 

Working in large group practices

Large group practices with 50 or more physicians are enjoying a renaissance, even though physicians are still streaming into hospital systems. The share of physicians in large practices increased from 14.7% in 2018 to 17.2% in 2020, the largest 2-year change for this group, according to the American Medical Association.

“Physicians expect that large groups will treat them better than hospitals do,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of Permanente Medical Group, the nation’s largest physicians’ group. 

Compared with hospitals, “doctors would prefer working in a group practice, if all other things are equal,” says Dr. Pearl, who is now a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical School.

Large group practices can include both multispecialty groups and single-specialty groups. Groups in specialties like urology, orthopedics, and oncology have been growing in recent years, according to Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group in Virginia Beach, Va.

A group practice could also be an independent physicians association – a federation of small practices that share functions like negotiations with insurers and management. Physicians can also form larger groups for single purposes like running an accountable care organization.

Some large group practices can have a mix of partners and employees. In these groups, “some doctors either don’t want a partnership or aren’t offered one,” says Nathan Miller, CEO of the Medicus Firm, a physician recruitment company in Dallas. The AMA reports that about 10% of physicians are employees of large practices.

“Large groups like the Permanente Medical Group are not partnerships,” Dr. Pearl says. “They tend to be a corporation with a board of directors, and all the physicians are employees, but it’s a physician-led organization.”

Doctors in these groups can enjoy a great deal of control. While Permanente Medical Group is exclusively affiliated with Kaiser, which runs hospitals and an HMO, the group is an independent corporation run by its doctors, who are both shareholders and employees, Dr. Pearl says.

The Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic are not medical groups in the strict sense of the word. They describe themselves as academic medical centers, but Dr. Pearl says, “Doctors have a tremendous amount of control there, particularly those in the most remunerative specialties.”

Pros of large groups 

Group practices are able to focus more on the physician participants’ needs and priorities, says Mr. Mertz. “In a hospital-based organization, physicians’ needs have to compete with the needs of the hospital. … In a large group, it can be easier to get policies changed and order equipment.”

However, for many physicians, their primary reason for joining a large group is having negotiating leverage with health insurance plans, and this leverage seems even more important today. It typically results in higher reimbursements, which could translate into higher pay. The higher practice income, however, could be negated by higher administrative overhead, which is endemic in large organizations.

Mr. Mertz says large groups also have the resources to recruit new doctors. Small practices, in contrast, often decide not to grow. The practice would at first need to guarantee the salary of a new partner, which could require existing partners to take a pay cut, which they often don’t want to do. “They’ll decide to ride the practice into the ground,” which means closing it down when they retire, he says.

Cons of large groups

One individual doctor may have relatively little input in decision-making in a large group, and strong leadership may be lacking. One study examining the pros and cons of large group practices found that lack of physician cooperation, investment, and leadership were the most frequently cited barriers in large groups.

Physicians in large groups can also divide into competing factions. Mr. Mertz says rifts are more likely to take place in multispecialty groups, where higher-reimbursed proceduralists resent having to financially support lower-reimbursed primary care physicians. But it’s rare that such rifts actually break up the practice, he says.
 

Private practice vs. employment

Even as more physicians enter large groups, physicians continue to flee private practice in general. In 2020, the AMA found that the number of physicians in private practices had dropped nearly 5 percentage points since 2018, the largest 2-year drop recorded by the AMA.

The hardest hit are small groups of 10 physicians or fewer, once the backbone of U.S. medicine. A 2020 survey found that 53.7% of physicians still work in small practices of 10 or fewer physicians, compared with 61.4% in 2012.

Private practices tend to be partnerships, but younger physicians, for their part, often don’t want to become a partner. In a 2016 survey, only 22% of medical residents surveyed said they anticipate owning a stake in a practice someday.

What’s good about private practice?

The obvious advantage of private practice is having control. Physician-owners can choose staff, oversee finances, and decide on the direction the practice should take. They don’t have to worry about being fired, because the partnership agreement virtually guarantees each doctor’s place in the group.

The atmosphere in a small practice is often more relaxed. “Private practices tend to offer a family-like environment,” Mr. Miller says. Owners of small practices tend to have lower burnout than large practices, a 2018 study found.

Unlike hospital-employed doctors, private practitioners get to keep their ancillary income. “Physicians own the equipment and receive income generated from ancillary services, not just professional fees,” says Mr. Miller.

What’s negative about private practice?

Since small groups have little negotiating power with private payers, they can’t get favorable reimbursement rates. And while partners are protected from being fired, the practice could still go bankrupt.

Running a private practice means putting on an entrepreneurial hat. To develop a strong practice, you need to learn about marketing, finance, IT, contract negotiations, and facility management. “Most young doctors have no interest in this work,” Mr. Mertz says.

Value-based contracting has added another disadvantage for small practices. “It can be harder for small, independent groups to compete,” says Mike Belkin, JD, a divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins, a physician recruitment company based in Dallas. “They don’t have the data and integration of services that are necessary for this.”
 

Employment in hospital systems

More than one-third of all physicians worked for hospitals in 2018, and hospitals’ share has been growing since then. In 2020, for the first time, the AMA found that more than half of all physicians were employed, and employment is mainly a hospital phenomenon.

The trend shows no signs of stopping. In 2019 and 2020, hospitals and other corporate entities acquired 20,900 physician practices, representing 29,800 doctors. “This trend will continue,” Dr. Pearl says. “The bigger will get bigger. It’s all about market control. Everyone wants to be wider, more vertical, and more powerful.”

Pros of hospital employment 

“The advantages of hospital employment are mostly financial,” Mr. Mertz says. Unlike a private practice, “there’s no financial risk to hospital employment because you don’t own it. You won’t be on the tab for any losses.”

“Hospitals usually offer a highly competitive salary with less emphasis on production than in a private practice,” he says. New physicians are typically paid a guaranteed salary in the first 1-3 years of employment.

“You don’t have any management responsibilities, as you would in a practice,” Mr. Mertz says. “The hospital has a professional management team to handle the business side. Most young doctors have no interest in this work.”

“Employed physicians have a built-in referral network at a hospital,” Mr. Miller says. This is especially an advantage for new physicians, who don’t yet have a referral network of their own.”

Cons of hospital employment

Physicians employed by a hospital lack control. “You don’t decide the hours you work, the schedules you follow, and the physical facility you work in, and, for the most part, you don’t pick your staff,” Mr. Mertz says.

Like any big organization, hospitals are bureaucratic. “If you want to purchase a new piece of equipment, your request goes up the chain of command,” Mr. Mertz says. “Your purchase has to fit into the budget.” (This can be the case with large groups, too.)

Many employed doctors chafe under this lack of control. In an earlier survey by Medscape, 45% of employed respondents didn’t like having limited influence in decision-making, and 32% said they had less control over their work or schedule.

It’s no wonder that a large percentage of physicians would rather work in practices than hospitals. According to a 2021 Medicus Firm survey, 23% of physicians are interested in working in hospitals, while 40% would rather work either in multispecialty or single-specialty groups, Mr. Miller reports.
 

Doctors have differing views of hospital employment

New physicians are apt to dismiss any negatives about hospitals. “Lack of autonomy often matters less to younger physicians, who were trained in team-based models,” Mr. Belkin says.

Many young doctors actually like working in a large organization. “Young doctors out of residency are used to having everything at their fingertips – labs and testing is in-house,” Mr. Mertz says.

On the other hand, doctors who were previously self-employed – a group that makes up almost one-third of all hospital-employed doctors – can often be dissatisfied with employment. In a 2014 Medscape survey, 26% of previously self-employed doctors said job satisfaction had not improved with employment.

Mr. Mertz says these doctors remember what it was like to be in charge of a practice. “If you once owned a practice, you can always compare what’s going on now with that experience, and that can make you frustrated.”
 

Hospitals have higher turnover

It’s much easier to leave an organization when you don’t have an ownership stake. The annual physician turnover rate at hospitals is 28%, compared with 7% at medical groups, according to a 2019 report.

Mr. Belkin says changing jobs has become a way of life for many doctors. “Staying at a job for only a few years is no longer a red flag,” he says. “Physicians are exploring different options. They might try group practice and switch to hospitals or vice versa.”

Physicians are now part of a high-turnover culture: Once in a new job, many are already thinking about the next one. A 2018 survey found that 46% of doctors planned to leave their position within 3 years.
 

Private equity ownership of practice

Selling majority control of your practice to a private equity firm is a relatively new phenomenon and accounts for a small share of physicians – just 4% in 2020. This trend was originally limited to certain specialties, such as anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and dermatology, but now many others are courted.

The deals work like this: Physicians sell majority control of their practice to investors in return for shares in the private equity practice, and they become employees of that practice. The private equity firm then adds more physicians to the practice and invests in infrastructure with the intention of selling the practice at a large profit, which is then shared with the original physicians.

Pros of private equity

The original owners of the practice stand to make a substantial profit if they are willing to wait several years for the practice to be built up and sold. “If they are patient, they could earn a bonanza,” Mr. Belkin says.

Private equity investment helps the practice expand. “It’s an alternative to going to the bank and borrowing money,” Mr. Mertz says.

Cons of private equity

Physicians lose control of their practice. A client of Mr. Mertz’s briefly considered a private equity offer and turned it down. “The private equity firm would have veto power over what the doctors wanted to do,” he says.

Mr. Belkin says the selling physicians typically lose income after the sale. “Money they earned from ancillary services now goes to the practice,” Mr. Belkin says. The selling doctors could potentially take up to a 30% cut in their compensation, according to Coker Capital Advisors.

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

Large, physician-owned group practices are gaining ground as a popular form of practice, even as the number of physicians in solo and small practices declines, and employment maintains its appeal.

Ridofranz/Thinkstock

As physicians shift from owning private practices to employment in hospital systems, this countertrend is also taking place. Large group practices are growing in number, even as solo and small practices are in decline.

Do large, physician-owned groups bring benefits that beat employment? And how do large groups compare with smaller practices and new opportunities, such as private equity? You’ll find some answers here.
 

Working in large group practices

Large group practices with 50 or more physicians are enjoying a renaissance, even though physicians are still streaming into hospital systems. The share of physicians in large practices increased from 14.7% in 2018 to 17.2% in 2020, the largest 2-year change for this group, according to the American Medical Association.

“Physicians expect that large groups will treat them better than hospitals do,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of Permanente Medical Group, the nation’s largest physicians’ group. 

Compared with hospitals, “doctors would prefer working in a group practice, if all other things are equal,” says Dr. Pearl, who is now a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical School.

Large group practices can include both multispecialty groups and single-specialty groups. Groups in specialties like urology, orthopedics, and oncology have been growing in recent years, according to Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group in Virginia Beach, Va.

A group practice could also be an independent physicians association – a federation of small practices that share functions like negotiations with insurers and management. Physicians can also form larger groups for single purposes like running an accountable care organization.

Some large group practices can have a mix of partners and employees. In these groups, “some doctors either don’t want a partnership or aren’t offered one,” says Nathan Miller, CEO of the Medicus Firm, a physician recruitment company in Dallas. The AMA reports that about 10% of physicians are employees of large practices.

“Large groups like the Permanente Medical Group are not partnerships,” Dr. Pearl says. “They tend to be a corporation with a board of directors, and all the physicians are employees, but it’s a physician-led organization.”

Doctors in these groups can enjoy a great deal of control. While Permanente Medical Group is exclusively affiliated with Kaiser, which runs hospitals and an HMO, the group is an independent corporation run by its doctors, who are both shareholders and employees, Dr. Pearl says.

The Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic are not medical groups in the strict sense of the word. They describe themselves as academic medical centers, but Dr. Pearl says, “Doctors have a tremendous amount of control there, particularly those in the most remunerative specialties.”

Pros of large groups 

Group practices are able to focus more on the physician participants’ needs and priorities, says Mr. Mertz. “In a hospital-based organization, physicians’ needs have to compete with the needs of the hospital. … In a large group, it can be easier to get policies changed and order equipment.”

However, for many physicians, their primary reason for joining a large group is having negotiating leverage with health insurance plans, and this leverage seems even more important today. It typically results in higher reimbursements, which could translate into higher pay. The higher practice income, however, could be negated by higher administrative overhead, which is endemic in large organizations.

Mr. Mertz says large groups also have the resources to recruit new doctors. Small practices, in contrast, often decide not to grow. The practice would at first need to guarantee the salary of a new partner, which could require existing partners to take a pay cut, which they often don’t want to do. “They’ll decide to ride the practice into the ground,” which means closing it down when they retire, he says.

Cons of large groups

One individual doctor may have relatively little input in decision-making in a large group, and strong leadership may be lacking. One study examining the pros and cons of large group practices found that lack of physician cooperation, investment, and leadership were the most frequently cited barriers in large groups.

Physicians in large groups can also divide into competing factions. Mr. Mertz says rifts are more likely to take place in multispecialty groups, where higher-reimbursed proceduralists resent having to financially support lower-reimbursed primary care physicians. But it’s rare that such rifts actually break up the practice, he says.
 

Private practice vs. employment

Even as more physicians enter large groups, physicians continue to flee private practice in general. In 2020, the AMA found that the number of physicians in private practices had dropped nearly 5 percentage points since 2018, the largest 2-year drop recorded by the AMA.

The hardest hit are small groups of 10 physicians or fewer, once the backbone of U.S. medicine. A 2020 survey found that 53.7% of physicians still work in small practices of 10 or fewer physicians, compared with 61.4% in 2012.

Private practices tend to be partnerships, but younger physicians, for their part, often don’t want to become a partner. In a 2016 survey, only 22% of medical residents surveyed said they anticipate owning a stake in a practice someday.

What’s good about private practice?

The obvious advantage of private practice is having control. Physician-owners can choose staff, oversee finances, and decide on the direction the practice should take. They don’t have to worry about being fired, because the partnership agreement virtually guarantees each doctor’s place in the group.

The atmosphere in a small practice is often more relaxed. “Private practices tend to offer a family-like environment,” Mr. Miller says. Owners of small practices tend to have lower burnout than large practices, a 2018 study found.

Unlike hospital-employed doctors, private practitioners get to keep their ancillary income. “Physicians own the equipment and receive income generated from ancillary services, not just professional fees,” says Mr. Miller.

What’s negative about private practice?

Since small groups have little negotiating power with private payers, they can’t get favorable reimbursement rates. And while partners are protected from being fired, the practice could still go bankrupt.

Running a private practice means putting on an entrepreneurial hat. To develop a strong practice, you need to learn about marketing, finance, IT, contract negotiations, and facility management. “Most young doctors have no interest in this work,” Mr. Mertz says.

Value-based contracting has added another disadvantage for small practices. “It can be harder for small, independent groups to compete,” says Mike Belkin, JD, a divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins, a physician recruitment company based in Dallas. “They don’t have the data and integration of services that are necessary for this.”
 

Employment in hospital systems

More than one-third of all physicians worked for hospitals in 2018, and hospitals’ share has been growing since then. In 2020, for the first time, the AMA found that more than half of all physicians were employed, and employment is mainly a hospital phenomenon.

The trend shows no signs of stopping. In 2019 and 2020, hospitals and other corporate entities acquired 20,900 physician practices, representing 29,800 doctors. “This trend will continue,” Dr. Pearl says. “The bigger will get bigger. It’s all about market control. Everyone wants to be wider, more vertical, and more powerful.”

Pros of hospital employment 

“The advantages of hospital employment are mostly financial,” Mr. Mertz says. Unlike a private practice, “there’s no financial risk to hospital employment because you don’t own it. You won’t be on the tab for any losses.”

“Hospitals usually offer a highly competitive salary with less emphasis on production than in a private practice,” he says. New physicians are typically paid a guaranteed salary in the first 1-3 years of employment.

“You don’t have any management responsibilities, as you would in a practice,” Mr. Mertz says. “The hospital has a professional management team to handle the business side. Most young doctors have no interest in this work.”

“Employed physicians have a built-in referral network at a hospital,” Mr. Miller says. This is especially an advantage for new physicians, who don’t yet have a referral network of their own.”

Cons of hospital employment

Physicians employed by a hospital lack control. “You don’t decide the hours you work, the schedules you follow, and the physical facility you work in, and, for the most part, you don’t pick your staff,” Mr. Mertz says.

Like any big organization, hospitals are bureaucratic. “If you want to purchase a new piece of equipment, your request goes up the chain of command,” Mr. Mertz says. “Your purchase has to fit into the budget.” (This can be the case with large groups, too.)

Many employed doctors chafe under this lack of control. In an earlier survey by Medscape, 45% of employed respondents didn’t like having limited influence in decision-making, and 32% said they had less control over their work or schedule.

It’s no wonder that a large percentage of physicians would rather work in practices than hospitals. According to a 2021 Medicus Firm survey, 23% of physicians are interested in working in hospitals, while 40% would rather work either in multispecialty or single-specialty groups, Mr. Miller reports.
 

Doctors have differing views of hospital employment

New physicians are apt to dismiss any negatives about hospitals. “Lack of autonomy often matters less to younger physicians, who were trained in team-based models,” Mr. Belkin says.

Many young doctors actually like working in a large organization. “Young doctors out of residency are used to having everything at their fingertips – labs and testing is in-house,” Mr. Mertz says.

On the other hand, doctors who were previously self-employed – a group that makes up almost one-third of all hospital-employed doctors – can often be dissatisfied with employment. In a 2014 Medscape survey, 26% of previously self-employed doctors said job satisfaction had not improved with employment.

Mr. Mertz says these doctors remember what it was like to be in charge of a practice. “If you once owned a practice, you can always compare what’s going on now with that experience, and that can make you frustrated.”
 

Hospitals have higher turnover

It’s much easier to leave an organization when you don’t have an ownership stake. The annual physician turnover rate at hospitals is 28%, compared with 7% at medical groups, according to a 2019 report.

Mr. Belkin says changing jobs has become a way of life for many doctors. “Staying at a job for only a few years is no longer a red flag,” he says. “Physicians are exploring different options. They might try group practice and switch to hospitals or vice versa.”

Physicians are now part of a high-turnover culture: Once in a new job, many are already thinking about the next one. A 2018 survey found that 46% of doctors planned to leave their position within 3 years.
 

Private equity ownership of practice

Selling majority control of your practice to a private equity firm is a relatively new phenomenon and accounts for a small share of physicians – just 4% in 2020. This trend was originally limited to certain specialties, such as anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and dermatology, but now many others are courted.

The deals work like this: Physicians sell majority control of their practice to investors in return for shares in the private equity practice, and they become employees of that practice. The private equity firm then adds more physicians to the practice and invests in infrastructure with the intention of selling the practice at a large profit, which is then shared with the original physicians.

Pros of private equity

The original owners of the practice stand to make a substantial profit if they are willing to wait several years for the practice to be built up and sold. “If they are patient, they could earn a bonanza,” Mr. Belkin says.

Private equity investment helps the practice expand. “It’s an alternative to going to the bank and borrowing money,” Mr. Mertz says.

Cons of private equity

Physicians lose control of their practice. A client of Mr. Mertz’s briefly considered a private equity offer and turned it down. “The private equity firm would have veto power over what the doctors wanted to do,” he says.

Mr. Belkin says the selling physicians typically lose income after the sale. “Money they earned from ancillary services now goes to the practice,” Mr. Belkin says. The selling doctors could potentially take up to a 30% cut in their compensation, according to Coker Capital Advisors.

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