User login
New Cancer Drugs: Do Patients Prefer Faster Access or Clinical Benefit?
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them.
The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials.
During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities.
In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.
Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.
But is that really the case?
The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works.
In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios.
The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).
The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).
The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios.
Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty.
Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.
“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.
Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview.
In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.
“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings.
“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”
However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added.
What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.
The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them.
The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials.
During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities.
In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.
Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.
But is that really the case?
The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works.
In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios.
The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).
The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).
The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios.
Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty.
Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.
“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.
Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview.
In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.
“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings.
“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”
However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added.
What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.
The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them.
The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials.
During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities.
In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.
Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.
But is that really the case?
The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works.
In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios.
The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).
The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).
The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios.
Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty.
Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.
“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.
Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview.
In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.
“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings.
“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”
However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added.
What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.
The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY
On the Murder of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO
On December 4, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was assassinated in New York City outside of a hotel. As of the time of this writing, the shooter is still at large.
I suppose I could write about how this shows that Americans are fed up with the way modern commercial healthcare companies operate. Who gets care and who doesn’t.
I could write about how industry trends of “Delay, Deny, Defend” lead to the suffering of millions of people who need healthcare that they thought they were paying for.
I could write about the callousness of the way people online are celebrating the cold-blooded murder of a married man with two children.
I might write about how insurance companies intentionally, and routinely, drag out (or deny) reimbursements for physicians (including small solo practice ones, like myself) who are legitimately caring for their patients.
I suppose I could write something about how gun violence is so pervasive in our society that it scarcely merits a second glance at the news story. If the headline just said, “Unknown Assailant Kills Man Outside Hotel,” would you have even read beyond that?
I could write about how the lack of regulations, and accelerating attempts to scrap them, can lead to insider trading.
I could write about how having insurance companies and medical facilities more beholden to shareholders than to patients is a serious conflict of interest.
I could try to make points about how the widespread availability of firearms (in this case one with a built-in silencer) in America means that anyone with a vendetta, or serious mental illness, or just a short temper, can get one — and use it.
I could talk about how “greed is good” in healthcare settings rewards a few and hurts many — no matter how much the PR spinners try to make it sound like it’s a great win-win situation all-around.
I could argue that the jubilant “good riddance” and “eat the rich” responses of many — both medical and nonmedical people — to the killing shows that, as a society, we’re losing the qualities that make us human.
I could also argue that putting financial gain for executive bonuses and stockholder dividends ahead of the health and well-being of others shows that, as a society, we’re losing the qualities that make us human.
I could make a point that , provided the target is someone they have a difference of opinion with. Which is, honestly, pretty damn scary.
I could talk about how policies of arbitrarily changing the rules about anesthesia coverage, or letting a computer decide how long a hospital stay should be, or to deny rehabilitation care, are unethical, unjust, and just plain wrong.
I could write about a lot of things based on what happened outside that New York Hilton Midtown in early December.
But as I stare at my screen, I’m well aware that no matter what I write it won’t change any opinions, solve anything, or even lead to people trying to find a solution.
Because that’s just the world we live in.
Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
On December 4, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was assassinated in New York City outside of a hotel. As of the time of this writing, the shooter is still at large.
I suppose I could write about how this shows that Americans are fed up with the way modern commercial healthcare companies operate. Who gets care and who doesn’t.
I could write about how industry trends of “Delay, Deny, Defend” lead to the suffering of millions of people who need healthcare that they thought they were paying for.
I could write about the callousness of the way people online are celebrating the cold-blooded murder of a married man with two children.
I might write about how insurance companies intentionally, and routinely, drag out (or deny) reimbursements for physicians (including small solo practice ones, like myself) who are legitimately caring for their patients.
I suppose I could write something about how gun violence is so pervasive in our society that it scarcely merits a second glance at the news story. If the headline just said, “Unknown Assailant Kills Man Outside Hotel,” would you have even read beyond that?
I could write about how the lack of regulations, and accelerating attempts to scrap them, can lead to insider trading.
I could write about how having insurance companies and medical facilities more beholden to shareholders than to patients is a serious conflict of interest.
I could try to make points about how the widespread availability of firearms (in this case one with a built-in silencer) in America means that anyone with a vendetta, or serious mental illness, or just a short temper, can get one — and use it.
I could talk about how “greed is good” in healthcare settings rewards a few and hurts many — no matter how much the PR spinners try to make it sound like it’s a great win-win situation all-around.
I could argue that the jubilant “good riddance” and “eat the rich” responses of many — both medical and nonmedical people — to the killing shows that, as a society, we’re losing the qualities that make us human.
I could also argue that putting financial gain for executive bonuses and stockholder dividends ahead of the health and well-being of others shows that, as a society, we’re losing the qualities that make us human.
I could make a point that , provided the target is someone they have a difference of opinion with. Which is, honestly, pretty damn scary.
I could talk about how policies of arbitrarily changing the rules about anesthesia coverage, or letting a computer decide how long a hospital stay should be, or to deny rehabilitation care, are unethical, unjust, and just plain wrong.
I could write about a lot of things based on what happened outside that New York Hilton Midtown in early December.
But as I stare at my screen, I’m well aware that no matter what I write it won’t change any opinions, solve anything, or even lead to people trying to find a solution.
Because that’s just the world we live in.
Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
On December 4, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was assassinated in New York City outside of a hotel. As of the time of this writing, the shooter is still at large.
I suppose I could write about how this shows that Americans are fed up with the way modern commercial healthcare companies operate. Who gets care and who doesn’t.
I could write about how industry trends of “Delay, Deny, Defend” lead to the suffering of millions of people who need healthcare that they thought they were paying for.
I could write about the callousness of the way people online are celebrating the cold-blooded murder of a married man with two children.
I might write about how insurance companies intentionally, and routinely, drag out (or deny) reimbursements for physicians (including small solo practice ones, like myself) who are legitimately caring for their patients.
I suppose I could write something about how gun violence is so pervasive in our society that it scarcely merits a second glance at the news story. If the headline just said, “Unknown Assailant Kills Man Outside Hotel,” would you have even read beyond that?
I could write about how the lack of regulations, and accelerating attempts to scrap them, can lead to insider trading.
I could write about how having insurance companies and medical facilities more beholden to shareholders than to patients is a serious conflict of interest.
I could try to make points about how the widespread availability of firearms (in this case one with a built-in silencer) in America means that anyone with a vendetta, or serious mental illness, or just a short temper, can get one — and use it.
I could talk about how “greed is good” in healthcare settings rewards a few and hurts many — no matter how much the PR spinners try to make it sound like it’s a great win-win situation all-around.
I could argue that the jubilant “good riddance” and “eat the rich” responses of many — both medical and nonmedical people — to the killing shows that, as a society, we’re losing the qualities that make us human.
I could also argue that putting financial gain for executive bonuses and stockholder dividends ahead of the health and well-being of others shows that, as a society, we’re losing the qualities that make us human.
I could make a point that , provided the target is someone they have a difference of opinion with. Which is, honestly, pretty damn scary.
I could talk about how policies of arbitrarily changing the rules about anesthesia coverage, or letting a computer decide how long a hospital stay should be, or to deny rehabilitation care, are unethical, unjust, and just plain wrong.
I could write about a lot of things based on what happened outside that New York Hilton Midtown in early December.
But as I stare at my screen, I’m well aware that no matter what I write it won’t change any opinions, solve anything, or even lead to people trying to find a solution.
Because that’s just the world we live in.
Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Rheumatology Match: Less than Half of Pediatric Positions Filled, Worsening Existing Trend
Over half of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions went unfilled in 2024, according to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Comparatively, nearly all adult rheumatology positions were filled.
Across all 39 subspecialties in internal medicine and pediatrics, there was an 86% fill rate. In pediatric subspecialties, the fill rate was 78%. There were more than 10,200 applicants in this year’s medicine and pediatric specialties match — a 9% increase from 2023 — and 81% matched to a position.
The NRMP reported that adult rheumatology filled 129 (97.7%) of 132 programs, with 284 (99%) out of 287 positions filled. In 2024, there were five new programs and 11 more fellowship positions available compared with the previous year.
In pediatric rheumatology, 16 (44%) of 36 programs were filled, with 27 (49%) of 55 positions filled. This is a notable decrease from 2023, where pediatric rheumatology filled 21 of 38 programs (55%) and 32 (62%) of 52 positions.
This year, 27 of 30 applicants preferring pediatric rheumatology matched to a program, while in 2023 all 32 applicants that preferred pediatric rheumatology matched.
“It’s a little disappointing that our overall number of applicants have not gone up,” Jay Mehta, MD, the program director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s pediatric rheumatology fellowship said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It’s an especially exciting time in pediatric rheumatology, with really fantastic breakthroughs in terms of treatments and diagnostics. Unfortunately, that excitement hasn’t necessarily translated into more interest in our field.”
Mehta noted that the number of applicants to pediatric rheumatology fellowships have remained relatively consistent. Since 2019, the number of applicants has ranged from 28 to 33.
“Given the low number of overall positions/programs it is hard to read too much into year-to-year differences,” added Kristen Hayward, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s in Washington. “While this total number of applicants per year is steady, this number is insufficient to build an adequate workforce for our current needs, much less for the future.”
This year, matched applicants to pediatric rheumatology included 13 MD graduates, eight DO graduates, five foreign applicants, and one US citizen international medical graduate.
In adult rheumatology, matched applicants included 108 MD graduates, 97 foreign applicants, 41 DO graduates, and 38 US citizen international medical graduates. A total of 365 applicants preferred the specialty, and 76% matched to rheumatology. Seven applicants matched to another specialty, and the remaining 79 did not match to any program.
Rheumatology was one of several specialties offering at least 150 positions with a fill rate of over 98%. The other specialties included allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and hematology and oncology.
While some pediatric subspecialties like critical care medicine and cardiology had fill rates over 90%, many “cognitive subspecialties” beyond pediatric rheumatology also struggled to fill spots, Hayward noted. Only 37% of pediatric nephrology positions and 48% of pediatric infectious disease positions were filled this year, in addition to a decline in filled pediatric-residency positions overall, she added.
Mehta had no relevant disclosures. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Over half of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions went unfilled in 2024, according to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Comparatively, nearly all adult rheumatology positions were filled.
Across all 39 subspecialties in internal medicine and pediatrics, there was an 86% fill rate. In pediatric subspecialties, the fill rate was 78%. There were more than 10,200 applicants in this year’s medicine and pediatric specialties match — a 9% increase from 2023 — and 81% matched to a position.
The NRMP reported that adult rheumatology filled 129 (97.7%) of 132 programs, with 284 (99%) out of 287 positions filled. In 2024, there were five new programs and 11 more fellowship positions available compared with the previous year.
In pediatric rheumatology, 16 (44%) of 36 programs were filled, with 27 (49%) of 55 positions filled. This is a notable decrease from 2023, where pediatric rheumatology filled 21 of 38 programs (55%) and 32 (62%) of 52 positions.
This year, 27 of 30 applicants preferring pediatric rheumatology matched to a program, while in 2023 all 32 applicants that preferred pediatric rheumatology matched.
“It’s a little disappointing that our overall number of applicants have not gone up,” Jay Mehta, MD, the program director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s pediatric rheumatology fellowship said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It’s an especially exciting time in pediatric rheumatology, with really fantastic breakthroughs in terms of treatments and diagnostics. Unfortunately, that excitement hasn’t necessarily translated into more interest in our field.”
Mehta noted that the number of applicants to pediatric rheumatology fellowships have remained relatively consistent. Since 2019, the number of applicants has ranged from 28 to 33.
“Given the low number of overall positions/programs it is hard to read too much into year-to-year differences,” added Kristen Hayward, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s in Washington. “While this total number of applicants per year is steady, this number is insufficient to build an adequate workforce for our current needs, much less for the future.”
This year, matched applicants to pediatric rheumatology included 13 MD graduates, eight DO graduates, five foreign applicants, and one US citizen international medical graduate.
In adult rheumatology, matched applicants included 108 MD graduates, 97 foreign applicants, 41 DO graduates, and 38 US citizen international medical graduates. A total of 365 applicants preferred the specialty, and 76% matched to rheumatology. Seven applicants matched to another specialty, and the remaining 79 did not match to any program.
Rheumatology was one of several specialties offering at least 150 positions with a fill rate of over 98%. The other specialties included allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and hematology and oncology.
While some pediatric subspecialties like critical care medicine and cardiology had fill rates over 90%, many “cognitive subspecialties” beyond pediatric rheumatology also struggled to fill spots, Hayward noted. Only 37% of pediatric nephrology positions and 48% of pediatric infectious disease positions were filled this year, in addition to a decline in filled pediatric-residency positions overall, she added.
Mehta had no relevant disclosures. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Over half of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions went unfilled in 2024, according to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Comparatively, nearly all adult rheumatology positions were filled.
Across all 39 subspecialties in internal medicine and pediatrics, there was an 86% fill rate. In pediatric subspecialties, the fill rate was 78%. There were more than 10,200 applicants in this year’s medicine and pediatric specialties match — a 9% increase from 2023 — and 81% matched to a position.
The NRMP reported that adult rheumatology filled 129 (97.7%) of 132 programs, with 284 (99%) out of 287 positions filled. In 2024, there were five new programs and 11 more fellowship positions available compared with the previous year.
In pediatric rheumatology, 16 (44%) of 36 programs were filled, with 27 (49%) of 55 positions filled. This is a notable decrease from 2023, where pediatric rheumatology filled 21 of 38 programs (55%) and 32 (62%) of 52 positions.
This year, 27 of 30 applicants preferring pediatric rheumatology matched to a program, while in 2023 all 32 applicants that preferred pediatric rheumatology matched.
“It’s a little disappointing that our overall number of applicants have not gone up,” Jay Mehta, MD, the program director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s pediatric rheumatology fellowship said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It’s an especially exciting time in pediatric rheumatology, with really fantastic breakthroughs in terms of treatments and diagnostics. Unfortunately, that excitement hasn’t necessarily translated into more interest in our field.”
Mehta noted that the number of applicants to pediatric rheumatology fellowships have remained relatively consistent. Since 2019, the number of applicants has ranged from 28 to 33.
“Given the low number of overall positions/programs it is hard to read too much into year-to-year differences,” added Kristen Hayward, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s in Washington. “While this total number of applicants per year is steady, this number is insufficient to build an adequate workforce for our current needs, much less for the future.”
This year, matched applicants to pediatric rheumatology included 13 MD graduates, eight DO graduates, five foreign applicants, and one US citizen international medical graduate.
In adult rheumatology, matched applicants included 108 MD graduates, 97 foreign applicants, 41 DO graduates, and 38 US citizen international medical graduates. A total of 365 applicants preferred the specialty, and 76% matched to rheumatology. Seven applicants matched to another specialty, and the remaining 79 did not match to any program.
Rheumatology was one of several specialties offering at least 150 positions with a fill rate of over 98%. The other specialties included allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and hematology and oncology.
While some pediatric subspecialties like critical care medicine and cardiology had fill rates over 90%, many “cognitive subspecialties” beyond pediatric rheumatology also struggled to fill spots, Hayward noted. Only 37% of pediatric nephrology positions and 48% of pediatric infectious disease positions were filled this year, in addition to a decline in filled pediatric-residency positions overall, she added.
Mehta had no relevant disclosures. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
National Noncompete Ban Unlikely to Survive Under Trump, Experts Say
Even before the presidential election, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) national ban on noncompete clauses faced a tough battle for survival in the courts.
Now, legal specialists forecast a grim prognosis for the ban under Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
But a federal district’s court ruling put the ban on hold, and the Trump administration isn’t expected to support lifting the ban.
“It is likely that the Trump administration will decline to defend the rule and may not even appeal the district court’s ruling, which means that the ban on noncompetes will not go into effect,” Steven Lubet, JD, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.
What’s in a Noncompete Clause?
Noncompete clauses in employee contracts typically restrict when and where workers can take future jobs. In medicine, supporters argue that the clauses are fair. Hospitals and practices provide a base of patients to physicians, they say, in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor.
But those opposed to these clauses argue that the restrictions harm careers and hurt patients by unfairly preventing physicians from moving to new jobs where they’re needed.
At an April meeting, the FTC board voted 3 to 2 to ban noncompete clauses; some nonprofit organizations and senior executives were expected to be exempt. The FTC estimated that the move would save the healthcare system alone as much as $194 billion over 10 years.
“A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” declared FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya.
Hospitals protested the move. In a statement, the general counsel for the American Hospital Association called it “bad law, bad policy, and a clear sign of an agency run amok” and said the FTC ignored “mountains of contrary legal precedent and evidence about its adverse impacts on the health care markets.”
Although the American Medical Association does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies in 2023 to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
Texas Federal Judge Intervenes to Halt Ban
The ban was supposed to take effect on Sept. 4, 2024. But Texas federal judge Ada E. Brown struck down the ban in an Aug. 20 decision. She ruled that the FTC went beyond its authority.
“The district court based its ruling on a very dubious distinction between ‘unfair practices,’ which the FTC may prohibit, and ‘unfair competition,’ which, according to the court, it may not,” said Lubet.
In fact, the ban should stand, he said. “This is a classic case of the government intervening on behalf of consumers/patients by prohibiting an unfair and harmful employment practice,” Lubet said.
Amanda Hill, an attorney in Austin, Texas, who trains physicians about how to negotiate contracts, has a different take. “The Federal Trade Commission came down hard, and honestly, it really overstepped,” she said in an interview. “Congress needs to write laws, not regulatory bodies. I think all the lawyers went: ‘Good try, but you’re not going to get anywhere with that.’ ”
She noted that physicians themselves are divided over the value of noncompete clauses. “I would say 80% of my clients can’t stand noncompetes.” But another 20% own their own practices and hate the idea of losing their physicians to competitors, she said.
Trump Isn’t Seen as Likely to Support Ban
While the Biden administration firmly supported a ban on noncompete clauses, there isn’t a strict Democratic-Republican divide over whether the agreements are a good idea. Some red states have embraced bans, and Hill said this can make sense from a Republican point of view: “We don’t want to run doctors out of town and out of the state because they think they’re going to be bound by big hospitals and corporate interests.”
In fact, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, a Republican briefly tapped as President-elect Trump’s nominee for attorney general, supports noncompete clauses. He filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Texas judge that supported the FTC’s ruling, saying it is a “vindication of economic freedom and free enterprise.”
But Republicans generally “believe that federal agencies are going too far and beyond the power granted to them by Congress,” Atlanta, Georgia, attorney Benjamin Fink, Esq., said in an interview.
And Trump is no fan of the FTC and its chair, Lina Khan, who may step down. Observers don’t expect that the Trump administration or a newly constituted FTC board will support an appeal of the Texas judge’s ruling.
“I don’t think anybody else — another agency or a private party — could step in place of the FTC if the FTC declines to defend the ban,” Atlanta attorney Neal F. Weinrich, Esq., said in an interview. In that case, “I think it ends.”
Attorneys Weinrich and Fink work at the same firm, which handles noncompete agreements for physicians.
Noncompete Ban Advocates Turn to States
Even if Kamala Harris had won the presidency, a national ban on noncompete clauses would have faced an uphill battle at the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court majority has been unsympathetic to administrative agencies, interpreting their authority very narrowly,” said Lubet.
So what happens to noncompete clauses now? While bipartisan bills in Congress have tried to ban them, legislation is unlikely to pass now that Republicans will control both the House and Senate, Fink said.
According to a recent article, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.
The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.
Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.
“I definitely think states are going to continue to restrict the use of noncompetes,” Fink said.
Lubet has no disclosures. Hill, Fink, and Weinrich represent physicians in contract negotiations.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Even before the presidential election, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) national ban on noncompete clauses faced a tough battle for survival in the courts.
Now, legal specialists forecast a grim prognosis for the ban under Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
But a federal district’s court ruling put the ban on hold, and the Trump administration isn’t expected to support lifting the ban.
“It is likely that the Trump administration will decline to defend the rule and may not even appeal the district court’s ruling, which means that the ban on noncompetes will not go into effect,” Steven Lubet, JD, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.
What’s in a Noncompete Clause?
Noncompete clauses in employee contracts typically restrict when and where workers can take future jobs. In medicine, supporters argue that the clauses are fair. Hospitals and practices provide a base of patients to physicians, they say, in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor.
But those opposed to these clauses argue that the restrictions harm careers and hurt patients by unfairly preventing physicians from moving to new jobs where they’re needed.
At an April meeting, the FTC board voted 3 to 2 to ban noncompete clauses; some nonprofit organizations and senior executives were expected to be exempt. The FTC estimated that the move would save the healthcare system alone as much as $194 billion over 10 years.
“A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” declared FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya.
Hospitals protested the move. In a statement, the general counsel for the American Hospital Association called it “bad law, bad policy, and a clear sign of an agency run amok” and said the FTC ignored “mountains of contrary legal precedent and evidence about its adverse impacts on the health care markets.”
Although the American Medical Association does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies in 2023 to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
Texas Federal Judge Intervenes to Halt Ban
The ban was supposed to take effect on Sept. 4, 2024. But Texas federal judge Ada E. Brown struck down the ban in an Aug. 20 decision. She ruled that the FTC went beyond its authority.
“The district court based its ruling on a very dubious distinction between ‘unfair practices,’ which the FTC may prohibit, and ‘unfair competition,’ which, according to the court, it may not,” said Lubet.
In fact, the ban should stand, he said. “This is a classic case of the government intervening on behalf of consumers/patients by prohibiting an unfair and harmful employment practice,” Lubet said.
Amanda Hill, an attorney in Austin, Texas, who trains physicians about how to negotiate contracts, has a different take. “The Federal Trade Commission came down hard, and honestly, it really overstepped,” she said in an interview. “Congress needs to write laws, not regulatory bodies. I think all the lawyers went: ‘Good try, but you’re not going to get anywhere with that.’ ”
She noted that physicians themselves are divided over the value of noncompete clauses. “I would say 80% of my clients can’t stand noncompetes.” But another 20% own their own practices and hate the idea of losing their physicians to competitors, she said.
Trump Isn’t Seen as Likely to Support Ban
While the Biden administration firmly supported a ban on noncompete clauses, there isn’t a strict Democratic-Republican divide over whether the agreements are a good idea. Some red states have embraced bans, and Hill said this can make sense from a Republican point of view: “We don’t want to run doctors out of town and out of the state because they think they’re going to be bound by big hospitals and corporate interests.”
In fact, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, a Republican briefly tapped as President-elect Trump’s nominee for attorney general, supports noncompete clauses. He filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Texas judge that supported the FTC’s ruling, saying it is a “vindication of economic freedom and free enterprise.”
But Republicans generally “believe that federal agencies are going too far and beyond the power granted to them by Congress,” Atlanta, Georgia, attorney Benjamin Fink, Esq., said in an interview.
And Trump is no fan of the FTC and its chair, Lina Khan, who may step down. Observers don’t expect that the Trump administration or a newly constituted FTC board will support an appeal of the Texas judge’s ruling.
“I don’t think anybody else — another agency or a private party — could step in place of the FTC if the FTC declines to defend the ban,” Atlanta attorney Neal F. Weinrich, Esq., said in an interview. In that case, “I think it ends.”
Attorneys Weinrich and Fink work at the same firm, which handles noncompete agreements for physicians.
Noncompete Ban Advocates Turn to States
Even if Kamala Harris had won the presidency, a national ban on noncompete clauses would have faced an uphill battle at the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court majority has been unsympathetic to administrative agencies, interpreting their authority very narrowly,” said Lubet.
So what happens to noncompete clauses now? While bipartisan bills in Congress have tried to ban them, legislation is unlikely to pass now that Republicans will control both the House and Senate, Fink said.
According to a recent article, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.
The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.
Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.
“I definitely think states are going to continue to restrict the use of noncompetes,” Fink said.
Lubet has no disclosures. Hill, Fink, and Weinrich represent physicians in contract negotiations.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Even before the presidential election, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) national ban on noncompete clauses faced a tough battle for survival in the courts.
Now, legal specialists forecast a grim prognosis for the ban under Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
But a federal district’s court ruling put the ban on hold, and the Trump administration isn’t expected to support lifting the ban.
“It is likely that the Trump administration will decline to defend the rule and may not even appeal the district court’s ruling, which means that the ban on noncompetes will not go into effect,” Steven Lubet, JD, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.
What’s in a Noncompete Clause?
Noncompete clauses in employee contracts typically restrict when and where workers can take future jobs. In medicine, supporters argue that the clauses are fair. Hospitals and practices provide a base of patients to physicians, they say, in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor.
But those opposed to these clauses argue that the restrictions harm careers and hurt patients by unfairly preventing physicians from moving to new jobs where they’re needed.
At an April meeting, the FTC board voted 3 to 2 to ban noncompete clauses; some nonprofit organizations and senior executives were expected to be exempt. The FTC estimated that the move would save the healthcare system alone as much as $194 billion over 10 years.
“A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” declared FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya.
Hospitals protested the move. In a statement, the general counsel for the American Hospital Association called it “bad law, bad policy, and a clear sign of an agency run amok” and said the FTC ignored “mountains of contrary legal precedent and evidence about its adverse impacts on the health care markets.”
Although the American Medical Association does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies in 2023 to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
Texas Federal Judge Intervenes to Halt Ban
The ban was supposed to take effect on Sept. 4, 2024. But Texas federal judge Ada E. Brown struck down the ban in an Aug. 20 decision. She ruled that the FTC went beyond its authority.
“The district court based its ruling on a very dubious distinction between ‘unfair practices,’ which the FTC may prohibit, and ‘unfair competition,’ which, according to the court, it may not,” said Lubet.
In fact, the ban should stand, he said. “This is a classic case of the government intervening on behalf of consumers/patients by prohibiting an unfair and harmful employment practice,” Lubet said.
Amanda Hill, an attorney in Austin, Texas, who trains physicians about how to negotiate contracts, has a different take. “The Federal Trade Commission came down hard, and honestly, it really overstepped,” she said in an interview. “Congress needs to write laws, not regulatory bodies. I think all the lawyers went: ‘Good try, but you’re not going to get anywhere with that.’ ”
She noted that physicians themselves are divided over the value of noncompete clauses. “I would say 80% of my clients can’t stand noncompetes.” But another 20% own their own practices and hate the idea of losing their physicians to competitors, she said.
Trump Isn’t Seen as Likely to Support Ban
While the Biden administration firmly supported a ban on noncompete clauses, there isn’t a strict Democratic-Republican divide over whether the agreements are a good idea. Some red states have embraced bans, and Hill said this can make sense from a Republican point of view: “We don’t want to run doctors out of town and out of the state because they think they’re going to be bound by big hospitals and corporate interests.”
In fact, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, a Republican briefly tapped as President-elect Trump’s nominee for attorney general, supports noncompete clauses. He filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Texas judge that supported the FTC’s ruling, saying it is a “vindication of economic freedom and free enterprise.”
But Republicans generally “believe that federal agencies are going too far and beyond the power granted to them by Congress,” Atlanta, Georgia, attorney Benjamin Fink, Esq., said in an interview.
And Trump is no fan of the FTC and its chair, Lina Khan, who may step down. Observers don’t expect that the Trump administration or a newly constituted FTC board will support an appeal of the Texas judge’s ruling.
“I don’t think anybody else — another agency or a private party — could step in place of the FTC if the FTC declines to defend the ban,” Atlanta attorney Neal F. Weinrich, Esq., said in an interview. In that case, “I think it ends.”
Attorneys Weinrich and Fink work at the same firm, which handles noncompete agreements for physicians.
Noncompete Ban Advocates Turn to States
Even if Kamala Harris had won the presidency, a national ban on noncompete clauses would have faced an uphill battle at the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court majority has been unsympathetic to administrative agencies, interpreting their authority very narrowly,” said Lubet.
So what happens to noncompete clauses now? While bipartisan bills in Congress have tried to ban them, legislation is unlikely to pass now that Republicans will control both the House and Senate, Fink said.
According to a recent article, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.
The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.
Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.
“I definitely think states are going to continue to restrict the use of noncompetes,” Fink said.
Lubet has no disclosures. Hill, Fink, and Weinrich represent physicians in contract negotiations.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Approaches to Research Beyond Massive Clinical Trials
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I want to briefly present a fascinating effort, one that needs to be applauded and applauded again, and then we need to scratch our collective heads and ask, why did we do it and what did we learn?
I’m referring to a report recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, “Long-Term Effect of Randomization to Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation on Health in Older Women: Postintervention Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” The title of this report does not do it justice. This was a massive effort — one could, I believe, even use the term Herculean — to ask an important question that was asked more than 20 years ago.
This was a national women’s health initiative to answer these questions. The study looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women who, at the time of agreeing to be randomized in this trial, had no history of breast or colorectal cancer. This was a 7-year randomized intervention effort, and 40 centers across the United States participated, obviously funded by the government. Randomization was one-to-one to placebo or 1000 mg calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D3 daily.
They looked at the incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and total cancer, and importantly as an endpoint, total cardiovascular disease and hip fractures. They didn’t comment on hip fractures in this particular analysis. Obviously, hip fractures relate to this question of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.
Here’s the bottom line: With a median follow-up now of 22.3 years — that’s not 2 years, but 22.3 years — there was a 7% decrease in cancer mortality in the population that received the calcium and vitamin D3. This is nothing to snicker at, and nothing at which to say, “Wow. That’s not important.”
However, in this analysis involving several tens of thousands of women, there was a 6% increase in cardiovascular disease mortality noted and reported. Overall, there was no effect on all-cause mortality of this intervention, with a hazard ratio — you rarely see this — of 1.00.
There is much that can be said, but I will summarize my comments very briefly. Criticize this if you want. It’s not inappropriate to criticize, but what was the individual impact of the calcium vs vitamin D? If they had only used one vs the other, or used both but in separate arms of the trial, and you could have separated what might have caused the decrease in cancer mortality and not the increased cardiovascular disease… This was designed more than 20 years ago. That’s one point.
The second is, how many more tens of thousands of patients would they have had to add to do this, and at what cost? This was a massive study, a national study, and a simple study in terms of the intervention. It was low risk except if you look at the long-term outcome. You can only imagine how much it would cost to do that study today — not the cost of the calcium, the vitamin D3, but the cost of doing the trial that was concluded to have no impact.
From a societal perspective, this was an important question to answer, certainly then. What did we learn and at what cost? The bottom line is that we have to figure out a way of answering these kinds of questions.
Perhaps now they should be from real-world data, looking at electronic medical records or at a variety of other population-based data so that we can get the answer — not in 20 years but in perhaps 2 months, because we’ve looked at the data using artificial intelligence to help us to answer these questions; and maybe not 36,000 patients but 360,000 individuals looked at over this period of time.
Again, I’m proposing an alternative solution because the questions that were asked 20 years ago remain important today. This cannot be the way that we, in the future, try to answer them, certainly from the perspective of cost and also the perspective of time to get the answers.
Let me conclude by, again, applauding these researchers because of the quality of the work they started out doing and ended up doing and reporting. Also, I think we’ve learned that we have to come up with alternative ways to answer what were important questions then and are important questions today.
Dr. Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I want to briefly present a fascinating effort, one that needs to be applauded and applauded again, and then we need to scratch our collective heads and ask, why did we do it and what did we learn?
I’m referring to a report recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, “Long-Term Effect of Randomization to Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation on Health in Older Women: Postintervention Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” The title of this report does not do it justice. This was a massive effort — one could, I believe, even use the term Herculean — to ask an important question that was asked more than 20 years ago.
This was a national women’s health initiative to answer these questions. The study looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women who, at the time of agreeing to be randomized in this trial, had no history of breast or colorectal cancer. This was a 7-year randomized intervention effort, and 40 centers across the United States participated, obviously funded by the government. Randomization was one-to-one to placebo or 1000 mg calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D3 daily.
They looked at the incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and total cancer, and importantly as an endpoint, total cardiovascular disease and hip fractures. They didn’t comment on hip fractures in this particular analysis. Obviously, hip fractures relate to this question of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.
Here’s the bottom line: With a median follow-up now of 22.3 years — that’s not 2 years, but 22.3 years — there was a 7% decrease in cancer mortality in the population that received the calcium and vitamin D3. This is nothing to snicker at, and nothing at which to say, “Wow. That’s not important.”
However, in this analysis involving several tens of thousands of women, there was a 6% increase in cardiovascular disease mortality noted and reported. Overall, there was no effect on all-cause mortality of this intervention, with a hazard ratio — you rarely see this — of 1.00.
There is much that can be said, but I will summarize my comments very briefly. Criticize this if you want. It’s not inappropriate to criticize, but what was the individual impact of the calcium vs vitamin D? If they had only used one vs the other, or used both but in separate arms of the trial, and you could have separated what might have caused the decrease in cancer mortality and not the increased cardiovascular disease… This was designed more than 20 years ago. That’s one point.
The second is, how many more tens of thousands of patients would they have had to add to do this, and at what cost? This was a massive study, a national study, and a simple study in terms of the intervention. It was low risk except if you look at the long-term outcome. You can only imagine how much it would cost to do that study today — not the cost of the calcium, the vitamin D3, but the cost of doing the trial that was concluded to have no impact.
From a societal perspective, this was an important question to answer, certainly then. What did we learn and at what cost? The bottom line is that we have to figure out a way of answering these kinds of questions.
Perhaps now they should be from real-world data, looking at electronic medical records or at a variety of other population-based data so that we can get the answer — not in 20 years but in perhaps 2 months, because we’ve looked at the data using artificial intelligence to help us to answer these questions; and maybe not 36,000 patients but 360,000 individuals looked at over this period of time.
Again, I’m proposing an alternative solution because the questions that were asked 20 years ago remain important today. This cannot be the way that we, in the future, try to answer them, certainly from the perspective of cost and also the perspective of time to get the answers.
Let me conclude by, again, applauding these researchers because of the quality of the work they started out doing and ended up doing and reporting. Also, I think we’ve learned that we have to come up with alternative ways to answer what were important questions then and are important questions today.
Dr. Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I want to briefly present a fascinating effort, one that needs to be applauded and applauded again, and then we need to scratch our collective heads and ask, why did we do it and what did we learn?
I’m referring to a report recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, “Long-Term Effect of Randomization to Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation on Health in Older Women: Postintervention Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” The title of this report does not do it justice. This was a massive effort — one could, I believe, even use the term Herculean — to ask an important question that was asked more than 20 years ago.
This was a national women’s health initiative to answer these questions. The study looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women who, at the time of agreeing to be randomized in this trial, had no history of breast or colorectal cancer. This was a 7-year randomized intervention effort, and 40 centers across the United States participated, obviously funded by the government. Randomization was one-to-one to placebo or 1000 mg calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D3 daily.
They looked at the incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and total cancer, and importantly as an endpoint, total cardiovascular disease and hip fractures. They didn’t comment on hip fractures in this particular analysis. Obviously, hip fractures relate to this question of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.
Here’s the bottom line: With a median follow-up now of 22.3 years — that’s not 2 years, but 22.3 years — there was a 7% decrease in cancer mortality in the population that received the calcium and vitamin D3. This is nothing to snicker at, and nothing at which to say, “Wow. That’s not important.”
However, in this analysis involving several tens of thousands of women, there was a 6% increase in cardiovascular disease mortality noted and reported. Overall, there was no effect on all-cause mortality of this intervention, with a hazard ratio — you rarely see this — of 1.00.
There is much that can be said, but I will summarize my comments very briefly. Criticize this if you want. It’s not inappropriate to criticize, but what was the individual impact of the calcium vs vitamin D? If they had only used one vs the other, or used both but in separate arms of the trial, and you could have separated what might have caused the decrease in cancer mortality and not the increased cardiovascular disease… This was designed more than 20 years ago. That’s one point.
The second is, how many more tens of thousands of patients would they have had to add to do this, and at what cost? This was a massive study, a national study, and a simple study in terms of the intervention. It was low risk except if you look at the long-term outcome. You can only imagine how much it would cost to do that study today — not the cost of the calcium, the vitamin D3, but the cost of doing the trial that was concluded to have no impact.
From a societal perspective, this was an important question to answer, certainly then. What did we learn and at what cost? The bottom line is that we have to figure out a way of answering these kinds of questions.
Perhaps now they should be from real-world data, looking at electronic medical records or at a variety of other population-based data so that we can get the answer — not in 20 years but in perhaps 2 months, because we’ve looked at the data using artificial intelligence to help us to answer these questions; and maybe not 36,000 patients but 360,000 individuals looked at over this period of time.
Again, I’m proposing an alternative solution because the questions that were asked 20 years ago remain important today. This cannot be the way that we, in the future, try to answer them, certainly from the perspective of cost and also the perspective of time to get the answers.
Let me conclude by, again, applauding these researchers because of the quality of the work they started out doing and ended up doing and reporting. Also, I think we’ve learned that we have to come up with alternative ways to answer what were important questions then and are important questions today.
Dr. Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Watch That Attitude: Is There Ageism in Healthcare?
People are living longer in Europe. Life expectancy increased on the continent by around 12 years between 1960 and 2022. And despite slower progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend appears to be continuing.
Not only are Europeans living longer, their fertility rates are declining. This means that the number of people aged 75-84 years is projected to grow in Europe a full 56.1% by 2050, while the population younger than 55 years is expected to fall by 13.5%.
This means that attitudes toward age need to change, and fast — even among healthcare professionals.
Healthcare Is Not Exempt From Ageist Attitudes
A systematic review published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2020 found that age was a determinant factor in dictating who received certain medical procedures or treatments. For example, a study of 9105 hospitalized patients found that healthcare providers were significantly more likely to withhold life-sustaining treatments from older patients. Another study found evidence that older people are excluded from clinical trials, even when the trials are for diseases that appear later in life, like Parkinson’s.
“In healthcare, there are different levels of ageism,” explained Hannah Swift, PhD, reader in social and organizational psychology at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom.
Ageism is embedded in the laws, rules, and practices of institutions, she explained. This became especially obvious during the pandemic, when health professionals had to decide who to treat, possibly using age as a proxy for making some of these decisions, she said.
“When you categorize people, you might be using stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations about age and that age group to make those decisions, and that’s where errors can occur.”
She added that ageist attitudes also become apparent at the interpersonal level by using patronizing language or offering unnecessary help to older people based on assumptions about their cognitive and physical abilities.
“Older age is often wrongly associated with declining levels of health and activity,” said Ittay Mannheim, PhD, guest postdoctoral researcher on aging and ageism at the Open University of the Netherlands. “However, older adults are a very diverse group, varying widely in many aspects, including health conditions. This stereotype can influence how healthcare professionals interact with them, assuming frailty or memory issues simply based on age. It’s important to recognize that being older doesn’t necessarily mean being ill.”
Mannheim’s research found that healthcare professionals often stand in the way of older people using technology-based treatments due to negative attitudes towards age. “So, actually, a barrier to using these technologies could be that healthcare professionals don’t think that someone can use it or won’t even offer it because someone looks old or is old,” he said.
The Impacts
Discrimination impacts the physical, mental, and social well-being of its victims. This includes attitudes towards age.
The PLOS ONE review of research on the global reach of ageism found that experienced or self-determined ageism was associated with significantly worse health outcomes across all countries examined. The same research team calculated that an estimated 6.3 million cases of depression worldwide are linked to ageism.
Other research has found that exposure to negative age stereotyping impacts willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle in addition to increasing the risk for cardiovascular events.
What Can Be Done?
“Healthcare professionals frequently interact with older adults at their most vulnerable, which can reinforce negative stereotypes of older people being vulnerable or ill,” said Swift. “However, not all older adults fit these stereotypes. Many can live well and independently. Perhaps healthcare education should include reminders of the diverse experiences of older individuals rather than solely focusing on the moments when they require help.”
Research indicates that although progress has been made in geriatric training and the care of older individuals by healthcare education institutions, improved education and training are still needed at all levels of geriatric healthcare, including hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, personal caregivers, and associated health professions.
“Generally speaking, what healthcare professionals learn about aging tends to focus more on the biological aspects,” said Mannheim. “However, they may not fully understand what it means to be old or how to interact with older individuals, especially regarding technology. It is important to raise awareness about ageism because, in my experience working with healthcare professionals, even a single workshop on ageism can have a profound impact. Participants often respond with surprise, saying something like, ‘Wow, I never thought about this before.’”
Mannheim said that training healthcare providers to understand the aging process better could help to reduce any biases they might have and better prepare them to respond more adequately to the needs of older patients.
“We cannot devalue the lives of older people simply because they are older. It is crucial for all of us, especially governments, to acknowledge our responsibility to protect and promote human rights for individuals of all ages. If we fail to do this, the strategies we’ve witnessed during this pandemic will be repeated in the future,” said Nena Georgantzi, PhD, Barcelona-based human rights manager at AGE Platform Europe, an EU network of organizations of and for older people.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
People are living longer in Europe. Life expectancy increased on the continent by around 12 years between 1960 and 2022. And despite slower progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend appears to be continuing.
Not only are Europeans living longer, their fertility rates are declining. This means that the number of people aged 75-84 years is projected to grow in Europe a full 56.1% by 2050, while the population younger than 55 years is expected to fall by 13.5%.
This means that attitudes toward age need to change, and fast — even among healthcare professionals.
Healthcare Is Not Exempt From Ageist Attitudes
A systematic review published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2020 found that age was a determinant factor in dictating who received certain medical procedures or treatments. For example, a study of 9105 hospitalized patients found that healthcare providers were significantly more likely to withhold life-sustaining treatments from older patients. Another study found evidence that older people are excluded from clinical trials, even when the trials are for diseases that appear later in life, like Parkinson’s.
“In healthcare, there are different levels of ageism,” explained Hannah Swift, PhD, reader in social and organizational psychology at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom.
Ageism is embedded in the laws, rules, and practices of institutions, she explained. This became especially obvious during the pandemic, when health professionals had to decide who to treat, possibly using age as a proxy for making some of these decisions, she said.
“When you categorize people, you might be using stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations about age and that age group to make those decisions, and that’s where errors can occur.”
She added that ageist attitudes also become apparent at the interpersonal level by using patronizing language or offering unnecessary help to older people based on assumptions about their cognitive and physical abilities.
“Older age is often wrongly associated with declining levels of health and activity,” said Ittay Mannheim, PhD, guest postdoctoral researcher on aging and ageism at the Open University of the Netherlands. “However, older adults are a very diverse group, varying widely in many aspects, including health conditions. This stereotype can influence how healthcare professionals interact with them, assuming frailty or memory issues simply based on age. It’s important to recognize that being older doesn’t necessarily mean being ill.”
Mannheim’s research found that healthcare professionals often stand in the way of older people using technology-based treatments due to negative attitudes towards age. “So, actually, a barrier to using these technologies could be that healthcare professionals don’t think that someone can use it or won’t even offer it because someone looks old or is old,” he said.
The Impacts
Discrimination impacts the physical, mental, and social well-being of its victims. This includes attitudes towards age.
The PLOS ONE review of research on the global reach of ageism found that experienced or self-determined ageism was associated with significantly worse health outcomes across all countries examined. The same research team calculated that an estimated 6.3 million cases of depression worldwide are linked to ageism.
Other research has found that exposure to negative age stereotyping impacts willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle in addition to increasing the risk for cardiovascular events.
What Can Be Done?
“Healthcare professionals frequently interact with older adults at their most vulnerable, which can reinforce negative stereotypes of older people being vulnerable or ill,” said Swift. “However, not all older adults fit these stereotypes. Many can live well and independently. Perhaps healthcare education should include reminders of the diverse experiences of older individuals rather than solely focusing on the moments when they require help.”
Research indicates that although progress has been made in geriatric training and the care of older individuals by healthcare education institutions, improved education and training are still needed at all levels of geriatric healthcare, including hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, personal caregivers, and associated health professions.
“Generally speaking, what healthcare professionals learn about aging tends to focus more on the biological aspects,” said Mannheim. “However, they may not fully understand what it means to be old or how to interact with older individuals, especially regarding technology. It is important to raise awareness about ageism because, in my experience working with healthcare professionals, even a single workshop on ageism can have a profound impact. Participants often respond with surprise, saying something like, ‘Wow, I never thought about this before.’”
Mannheim said that training healthcare providers to understand the aging process better could help to reduce any biases they might have and better prepare them to respond more adequately to the needs of older patients.
“We cannot devalue the lives of older people simply because they are older. It is crucial for all of us, especially governments, to acknowledge our responsibility to protect and promote human rights for individuals of all ages. If we fail to do this, the strategies we’ve witnessed during this pandemic will be repeated in the future,” said Nena Georgantzi, PhD, Barcelona-based human rights manager at AGE Platform Europe, an EU network of organizations of and for older people.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
People are living longer in Europe. Life expectancy increased on the continent by around 12 years between 1960 and 2022. And despite slower progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend appears to be continuing.
Not only are Europeans living longer, their fertility rates are declining. This means that the number of people aged 75-84 years is projected to grow in Europe a full 56.1% by 2050, while the population younger than 55 years is expected to fall by 13.5%.
This means that attitudes toward age need to change, and fast — even among healthcare professionals.
Healthcare Is Not Exempt From Ageist Attitudes
A systematic review published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2020 found that age was a determinant factor in dictating who received certain medical procedures or treatments. For example, a study of 9105 hospitalized patients found that healthcare providers were significantly more likely to withhold life-sustaining treatments from older patients. Another study found evidence that older people are excluded from clinical trials, even when the trials are for diseases that appear later in life, like Parkinson’s.
“In healthcare, there are different levels of ageism,” explained Hannah Swift, PhD, reader in social and organizational psychology at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom.
Ageism is embedded in the laws, rules, and practices of institutions, she explained. This became especially obvious during the pandemic, when health professionals had to decide who to treat, possibly using age as a proxy for making some of these decisions, she said.
“When you categorize people, you might be using stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations about age and that age group to make those decisions, and that’s where errors can occur.”
She added that ageist attitudes also become apparent at the interpersonal level by using patronizing language or offering unnecessary help to older people based on assumptions about their cognitive and physical abilities.
“Older age is often wrongly associated with declining levels of health and activity,” said Ittay Mannheim, PhD, guest postdoctoral researcher on aging and ageism at the Open University of the Netherlands. “However, older adults are a very diverse group, varying widely in many aspects, including health conditions. This stereotype can influence how healthcare professionals interact with them, assuming frailty or memory issues simply based on age. It’s important to recognize that being older doesn’t necessarily mean being ill.”
Mannheim’s research found that healthcare professionals often stand in the way of older people using technology-based treatments due to negative attitudes towards age. “So, actually, a barrier to using these technologies could be that healthcare professionals don’t think that someone can use it or won’t even offer it because someone looks old or is old,” he said.
The Impacts
Discrimination impacts the physical, mental, and social well-being of its victims. This includes attitudes towards age.
The PLOS ONE review of research on the global reach of ageism found that experienced or self-determined ageism was associated with significantly worse health outcomes across all countries examined. The same research team calculated that an estimated 6.3 million cases of depression worldwide are linked to ageism.
Other research has found that exposure to negative age stereotyping impacts willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle in addition to increasing the risk for cardiovascular events.
What Can Be Done?
“Healthcare professionals frequently interact with older adults at their most vulnerable, which can reinforce negative stereotypes of older people being vulnerable or ill,” said Swift. “However, not all older adults fit these stereotypes. Many can live well and independently. Perhaps healthcare education should include reminders of the diverse experiences of older individuals rather than solely focusing on the moments when they require help.”
Research indicates that although progress has been made in geriatric training and the care of older individuals by healthcare education institutions, improved education and training are still needed at all levels of geriatric healthcare, including hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, personal caregivers, and associated health professions.
“Generally speaking, what healthcare professionals learn about aging tends to focus more on the biological aspects,” said Mannheim. “However, they may not fully understand what it means to be old or how to interact with older individuals, especially regarding technology. It is important to raise awareness about ageism because, in my experience working with healthcare professionals, even a single workshop on ageism can have a profound impact. Participants often respond with surprise, saying something like, ‘Wow, I never thought about this before.’”
Mannheim said that training healthcare providers to understand the aging process better could help to reduce any biases they might have and better prepare them to respond more adequately to the needs of older patients.
“We cannot devalue the lives of older people simply because they are older. It is crucial for all of us, especially governments, to acknowledge our responsibility to protect and promote human rights for individuals of all ages. If we fail to do this, the strategies we’ve witnessed during this pandemic will be repeated in the future,” said Nena Georgantzi, PhD, Barcelona-based human rights manager at AGE Platform Europe, an EU network of organizations of and for older people.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Being a Doctor Isn’t Healthy’: Train Your Body to Handle It
Heather K. Schopper, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Penn State Health, Hershey, Pennsylvania, wasn’t long into her career when she began feeling its physical demands. Standing for 12 hours at a time, holding awkward positions for long periods, and working with surgical tables and instruments made for doctors much taller and larger meant severe back, shoulder, and neck pain at the end of every shift.
“You just want to lie down on the floor at the end of the day,” Schopper explained. “The wear and tear of our profession is really challenging.”
Here’s the thing: At the time Schopper wasn’t particularly out of shape. She only knew she needed to build up her body for long days and a long career. What, physically, would that look like?
This was the catalyst for what she calls a “health and fitness journey” that transformed the way she practices.
“Medicine is unique in its physical demands,” said Meghan Wieser, PT, DPT, a doctor of physical therapy at Recharge Health and Fitness in Ellicott City, Maryland. Wieser frequently works with physicians and others in high-stress career environments, and she’s observed the serious toll that physically demanding medical practice can take on the body.
It’s not just about preventing acute or chronic injury, she said. It’s about performing better for longer periods. And every doctor knows the only way to build a more functional body is training.
The Fantasy of Physical Perfection vs the Reality of, Well, Reality
Jordan D. Metzl, MD, is a sports medicine physician at Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) in New York City. He’s also a lifelong triathlete and marathon runner and has parlayed that passion into an online fitness community of more than 10,000 people called Ironstrength. Through that, Metzl has led free exercise classes in Central Park for years. He doesn’t dabble. Three times a year he leads a boot camp class of more than 1000 people on the flight deck of the USS Intrepid on the Hudson River.
“I get it, being a doctor is all about the hours,” he said. “The time sacrifices get brutal and you have to cut something out, sometimes every day. For a lot of us, that’s exercise.”
Metzl understands it so well that he recently began leading twice-monthly boot camp classes just for his HSS physician colleagues on Wednesday mornings. He says those doctors both want and need that extra boost and will be aggressive about making time for it.
“The better shape you’re in, the better job you’ll do as a physician,” he said. “You’ll feel better when the hours get long. In my own career, I have always been a better doctor when I’m active and in shape.”
Knowledge isn’t really the issue for physicians. Reality is. And reality dictates that doctors have just as much issue with achieving consistency as any patient they prescribe exercise to.
Metzl suggests total body functional training to mimic real-world movement, particularly core and lower body to keep you upright for hours at a time. How do you schedule that? He uses early mornings and weekends to train for his races and run his fitness classes, which is why his primary advice is to focus not on the activity, but on time.
“Schedule full workouts when you can and steal the rest,” he said.
Schopper agrees. “You may not be able to fit in 60 minutes of exercise every day, but 20-30 minutes of intentional movement is key,” she explained. “When you have a day off, prioritize a longer session of something you can’t fit in on workdays.”
Those shorter bouts of exercise might include “bookending” the day with 10 minutes of burpees in the morning and then 10 minutes of bodyweight strength moves like planks, push-ups, and air squats in the evening.
“Bodyweight exercises are low-hanging fruit,” said Wieser. “If you’ve got a short window, aim for something that can shoot your heart rate up quickly.”
You can also throw in “movement snacks” throughout the day — skip the elevator and run up a flight of stairs, walk around during a quick lunch break, or throw in a set of jumping jacks between patients. (Don’t worry — you won’t be dripping sweat when they walk in.)
Remember, the rehab room in the orthopedic wing may have a few dumbbells and exercise bands you can utilize when you have 5 extra minutes in your day. “Any way you can squeeze in extra movement counts,” said Wieser.
Feats of Strength? Neighborhood Sprints? It All Matters
Kissinger Goldman, DO, a Florida-based ER physician, began his dedication to exercise 17 years ago, after a high-cholesterol diagnosis. “Did I have time to exercise in medical school and residency? Yes,” Goldman admitted. “But I didn’t have the same commitment to my health until I received that number. I set about to change everything.”
Goldman follows the approach of dividing up his exercise routine into short or long sessions, depending on his schedule. “If I’m off, I’ll aim for 30 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of strength and core work,” he explained. “When I have to work, I’ll do a compressed version of that routine as soon as I wake up, and make sure the cardio is very intense — I’ll sprint in my neighborhood, for instance.”
Matt Klein, a doctor of physical therapy and professor at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon, who has treated many doctors, says that, when pushed for time, just 20 minutes of “heavy” strength training can deliver good results. “The definition of heavy will vary, but aim for a weight that is challenging, whether a beginner or a more experienced exerciser,” he said. “Most doctors won’t have time to go to the gym, so a simple set of dumbbells or kettlebells will work just fine. The easier it is to access, the more likely you are to do it consistently.”
Klein is a fan of strength training with good reason: “Strength is a predictor of chronic disease, so doing some high-level strength training or power training can go a long way,” he said.
The endorphin high and overall sense of improved well-being are an extra bonus. Goldman credits it with ensuring he rarely misses a workout.
Get Hardcore About Sleep
Consider the following passage: “There are clear negative effects of sleep deprivation on performance, including reaction time, accuracy, vigor, submaximal strength, and endurance. Cognitive functions such as judgment and decision-making also suffer.”
Does that sound like how you feel on suboptimal sleep? That’s from an International Journal of Sports Medicine study on the effects of sleep deprivation on athletes.
Athletes aren’t doctors — but when you consider “reaction time, accuracy, endurance, judgment, and decision-making” — doctors could certainly benefit by thinking like athletes.
Schopper is serious about sleep and sets firm boundaries.
“It’s hard,” she admitted. “We want to work, see our families, have fun. But I work hard to say, ‘I’m done,’ and go to bed.”
“Rest is crucial for this job,” agreed Goldman. “If you don’t have adequate sleep, your cortisone levels are going to go up. When you’re exhausted and you’re working, you’re likely to miss something.” Goldman is consistent with early bedtimes around 9:00 or 9:30 PM, and he allows for a bit of “wind-down” time by reading for about 20 minutes before nodding off.
Goldman also sees a link between rest and improved interactions with patients. “There’s a direct correlation between number of hours worked in a row with respect to ‘customer service’ with patients,” he said.
But don’t aim for perfection. Allow some wiggle room for the time you spend asleep, Klein recommends. “We’ve always aimed for 8 hours, but there’s evidence that even 6 or 7 hours can be enough to allow you to recover as needed,” he said. “Optimally, you want that to be uninterrupted, but if not, a 10-minute power nap can help with mental clarity.”
Keep Searching, Keep Trying, Keep Training
Schopper was never, nor has she become, a gym rat. Still, “I knew I needed to build upper body strength,” she said. That meant expanding her fitness possibilities beyond the obvious. She discovered aerial arts — intense workouts using straps and other suspension tools to work every muscle in her body while hanging from the ceiling. Increased strength was a given, but she also seriously increased her range of motion.
For Schopper, the improvements to her lifestyle have been game changers. “I still have long days, but I’m no longer sore and tired after them,” she said. “I sleep better and have more energy. I’m proud of myself for putting the effort into this.”
A journey toward health and fitness may look different for everyone, but (as doctors frequently tell their patients) it’s a path anyone can follow.
“Being a doctor is not necessarily good for your health,” said Klein. “The body can handle the job, however, if you train for it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Heather K. Schopper, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Penn State Health, Hershey, Pennsylvania, wasn’t long into her career when she began feeling its physical demands. Standing for 12 hours at a time, holding awkward positions for long periods, and working with surgical tables and instruments made for doctors much taller and larger meant severe back, shoulder, and neck pain at the end of every shift.
“You just want to lie down on the floor at the end of the day,” Schopper explained. “The wear and tear of our profession is really challenging.”
Here’s the thing: At the time Schopper wasn’t particularly out of shape. She only knew she needed to build up her body for long days and a long career. What, physically, would that look like?
This was the catalyst for what she calls a “health and fitness journey” that transformed the way she practices.
“Medicine is unique in its physical demands,” said Meghan Wieser, PT, DPT, a doctor of physical therapy at Recharge Health and Fitness in Ellicott City, Maryland. Wieser frequently works with physicians and others in high-stress career environments, and she’s observed the serious toll that physically demanding medical practice can take on the body.
It’s not just about preventing acute or chronic injury, she said. It’s about performing better for longer periods. And every doctor knows the only way to build a more functional body is training.
The Fantasy of Physical Perfection vs the Reality of, Well, Reality
Jordan D. Metzl, MD, is a sports medicine physician at Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) in New York City. He’s also a lifelong triathlete and marathon runner and has parlayed that passion into an online fitness community of more than 10,000 people called Ironstrength. Through that, Metzl has led free exercise classes in Central Park for years. He doesn’t dabble. Three times a year he leads a boot camp class of more than 1000 people on the flight deck of the USS Intrepid on the Hudson River.
“I get it, being a doctor is all about the hours,” he said. “The time sacrifices get brutal and you have to cut something out, sometimes every day. For a lot of us, that’s exercise.”
Metzl understands it so well that he recently began leading twice-monthly boot camp classes just for his HSS physician colleagues on Wednesday mornings. He says those doctors both want and need that extra boost and will be aggressive about making time for it.
“The better shape you’re in, the better job you’ll do as a physician,” he said. “You’ll feel better when the hours get long. In my own career, I have always been a better doctor when I’m active and in shape.”
Knowledge isn’t really the issue for physicians. Reality is. And reality dictates that doctors have just as much issue with achieving consistency as any patient they prescribe exercise to.
Metzl suggests total body functional training to mimic real-world movement, particularly core and lower body to keep you upright for hours at a time. How do you schedule that? He uses early mornings and weekends to train for his races and run his fitness classes, which is why his primary advice is to focus not on the activity, but on time.
“Schedule full workouts when you can and steal the rest,” he said.
Schopper agrees. “You may not be able to fit in 60 minutes of exercise every day, but 20-30 minutes of intentional movement is key,” she explained. “When you have a day off, prioritize a longer session of something you can’t fit in on workdays.”
Those shorter bouts of exercise might include “bookending” the day with 10 minutes of burpees in the morning and then 10 minutes of bodyweight strength moves like planks, push-ups, and air squats in the evening.
“Bodyweight exercises are low-hanging fruit,” said Wieser. “If you’ve got a short window, aim for something that can shoot your heart rate up quickly.”
You can also throw in “movement snacks” throughout the day — skip the elevator and run up a flight of stairs, walk around during a quick lunch break, or throw in a set of jumping jacks between patients. (Don’t worry — you won’t be dripping sweat when they walk in.)
Remember, the rehab room in the orthopedic wing may have a few dumbbells and exercise bands you can utilize when you have 5 extra minutes in your day. “Any way you can squeeze in extra movement counts,” said Wieser.
Feats of Strength? Neighborhood Sprints? It All Matters
Kissinger Goldman, DO, a Florida-based ER physician, began his dedication to exercise 17 years ago, after a high-cholesterol diagnosis. “Did I have time to exercise in medical school and residency? Yes,” Goldman admitted. “But I didn’t have the same commitment to my health until I received that number. I set about to change everything.”
Goldman follows the approach of dividing up his exercise routine into short or long sessions, depending on his schedule. “If I’m off, I’ll aim for 30 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of strength and core work,” he explained. “When I have to work, I’ll do a compressed version of that routine as soon as I wake up, and make sure the cardio is very intense — I’ll sprint in my neighborhood, for instance.”
Matt Klein, a doctor of physical therapy and professor at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon, who has treated many doctors, says that, when pushed for time, just 20 minutes of “heavy” strength training can deliver good results. “The definition of heavy will vary, but aim for a weight that is challenging, whether a beginner or a more experienced exerciser,” he said. “Most doctors won’t have time to go to the gym, so a simple set of dumbbells or kettlebells will work just fine. The easier it is to access, the more likely you are to do it consistently.”
Klein is a fan of strength training with good reason: “Strength is a predictor of chronic disease, so doing some high-level strength training or power training can go a long way,” he said.
The endorphin high and overall sense of improved well-being are an extra bonus. Goldman credits it with ensuring he rarely misses a workout.
Get Hardcore About Sleep
Consider the following passage: “There are clear negative effects of sleep deprivation on performance, including reaction time, accuracy, vigor, submaximal strength, and endurance. Cognitive functions such as judgment and decision-making also suffer.”
Does that sound like how you feel on suboptimal sleep? That’s from an International Journal of Sports Medicine study on the effects of sleep deprivation on athletes.
Athletes aren’t doctors — but when you consider “reaction time, accuracy, endurance, judgment, and decision-making” — doctors could certainly benefit by thinking like athletes.
Schopper is serious about sleep and sets firm boundaries.
“It’s hard,” she admitted. “We want to work, see our families, have fun. But I work hard to say, ‘I’m done,’ and go to bed.”
“Rest is crucial for this job,” agreed Goldman. “If you don’t have adequate sleep, your cortisone levels are going to go up. When you’re exhausted and you’re working, you’re likely to miss something.” Goldman is consistent with early bedtimes around 9:00 or 9:30 PM, and he allows for a bit of “wind-down” time by reading for about 20 minutes before nodding off.
Goldman also sees a link between rest and improved interactions with patients. “There’s a direct correlation between number of hours worked in a row with respect to ‘customer service’ with patients,” he said.
But don’t aim for perfection. Allow some wiggle room for the time you spend asleep, Klein recommends. “We’ve always aimed for 8 hours, but there’s evidence that even 6 or 7 hours can be enough to allow you to recover as needed,” he said. “Optimally, you want that to be uninterrupted, but if not, a 10-minute power nap can help with mental clarity.”
Keep Searching, Keep Trying, Keep Training
Schopper was never, nor has she become, a gym rat. Still, “I knew I needed to build upper body strength,” she said. That meant expanding her fitness possibilities beyond the obvious. She discovered aerial arts — intense workouts using straps and other suspension tools to work every muscle in her body while hanging from the ceiling. Increased strength was a given, but she also seriously increased her range of motion.
For Schopper, the improvements to her lifestyle have been game changers. “I still have long days, but I’m no longer sore and tired after them,” she said. “I sleep better and have more energy. I’m proud of myself for putting the effort into this.”
A journey toward health and fitness may look different for everyone, but (as doctors frequently tell their patients) it’s a path anyone can follow.
“Being a doctor is not necessarily good for your health,” said Klein. “The body can handle the job, however, if you train for it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Heather K. Schopper, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Penn State Health, Hershey, Pennsylvania, wasn’t long into her career when she began feeling its physical demands. Standing for 12 hours at a time, holding awkward positions for long periods, and working with surgical tables and instruments made for doctors much taller and larger meant severe back, shoulder, and neck pain at the end of every shift.
“You just want to lie down on the floor at the end of the day,” Schopper explained. “The wear and tear of our profession is really challenging.”
Here’s the thing: At the time Schopper wasn’t particularly out of shape. She only knew she needed to build up her body for long days and a long career. What, physically, would that look like?
This was the catalyst for what she calls a “health and fitness journey” that transformed the way she practices.
“Medicine is unique in its physical demands,” said Meghan Wieser, PT, DPT, a doctor of physical therapy at Recharge Health and Fitness in Ellicott City, Maryland. Wieser frequently works with physicians and others in high-stress career environments, and she’s observed the serious toll that physically demanding medical practice can take on the body.
It’s not just about preventing acute or chronic injury, she said. It’s about performing better for longer periods. And every doctor knows the only way to build a more functional body is training.
The Fantasy of Physical Perfection vs the Reality of, Well, Reality
Jordan D. Metzl, MD, is a sports medicine physician at Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) in New York City. He’s also a lifelong triathlete and marathon runner and has parlayed that passion into an online fitness community of more than 10,000 people called Ironstrength. Through that, Metzl has led free exercise classes in Central Park for years. He doesn’t dabble. Three times a year he leads a boot camp class of more than 1000 people on the flight deck of the USS Intrepid on the Hudson River.
“I get it, being a doctor is all about the hours,” he said. “The time sacrifices get brutal and you have to cut something out, sometimes every day. For a lot of us, that’s exercise.”
Metzl understands it so well that he recently began leading twice-monthly boot camp classes just for his HSS physician colleagues on Wednesday mornings. He says those doctors both want and need that extra boost and will be aggressive about making time for it.
“The better shape you’re in, the better job you’ll do as a physician,” he said. “You’ll feel better when the hours get long. In my own career, I have always been a better doctor when I’m active and in shape.”
Knowledge isn’t really the issue for physicians. Reality is. And reality dictates that doctors have just as much issue with achieving consistency as any patient they prescribe exercise to.
Metzl suggests total body functional training to mimic real-world movement, particularly core and lower body to keep you upright for hours at a time. How do you schedule that? He uses early mornings and weekends to train for his races and run his fitness classes, which is why his primary advice is to focus not on the activity, but on time.
“Schedule full workouts when you can and steal the rest,” he said.
Schopper agrees. “You may not be able to fit in 60 minutes of exercise every day, but 20-30 minutes of intentional movement is key,” she explained. “When you have a day off, prioritize a longer session of something you can’t fit in on workdays.”
Those shorter bouts of exercise might include “bookending” the day with 10 minutes of burpees in the morning and then 10 minutes of bodyweight strength moves like planks, push-ups, and air squats in the evening.
“Bodyweight exercises are low-hanging fruit,” said Wieser. “If you’ve got a short window, aim for something that can shoot your heart rate up quickly.”
You can also throw in “movement snacks” throughout the day — skip the elevator and run up a flight of stairs, walk around during a quick lunch break, or throw in a set of jumping jacks between patients. (Don’t worry — you won’t be dripping sweat when they walk in.)
Remember, the rehab room in the orthopedic wing may have a few dumbbells and exercise bands you can utilize when you have 5 extra minutes in your day. “Any way you can squeeze in extra movement counts,” said Wieser.
Feats of Strength? Neighborhood Sprints? It All Matters
Kissinger Goldman, DO, a Florida-based ER physician, began his dedication to exercise 17 years ago, after a high-cholesterol diagnosis. “Did I have time to exercise in medical school and residency? Yes,” Goldman admitted. “But I didn’t have the same commitment to my health until I received that number. I set about to change everything.”
Goldman follows the approach of dividing up his exercise routine into short or long sessions, depending on his schedule. “If I’m off, I’ll aim for 30 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of strength and core work,” he explained. “When I have to work, I’ll do a compressed version of that routine as soon as I wake up, and make sure the cardio is very intense — I’ll sprint in my neighborhood, for instance.”
Matt Klein, a doctor of physical therapy and professor at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon, who has treated many doctors, says that, when pushed for time, just 20 minutes of “heavy” strength training can deliver good results. “The definition of heavy will vary, but aim for a weight that is challenging, whether a beginner or a more experienced exerciser,” he said. “Most doctors won’t have time to go to the gym, so a simple set of dumbbells or kettlebells will work just fine. The easier it is to access, the more likely you are to do it consistently.”
Klein is a fan of strength training with good reason: “Strength is a predictor of chronic disease, so doing some high-level strength training or power training can go a long way,” he said.
The endorphin high and overall sense of improved well-being are an extra bonus. Goldman credits it with ensuring he rarely misses a workout.
Get Hardcore About Sleep
Consider the following passage: “There are clear negative effects of sleep deprivation on performance, including reaction time, accuracy, vigor, submaximal strength, and endurance. Cognitive functions such as judgment and decision-making also suffer.”
Does that sound like how you feel on suboptimal sleep? That’s from an International Journal of Sports Medicine study on the effects of sleep deprivation on athletes.
Athletes aren’t doctors — but when you consider “reaction time, accuracy, endurance, judgment, and decision-making” — doctors could certainly benefit by thinking like athletes.
Schopper is serious about sleep and sets firm boundaries.
“It’s hard,” she admitted. “We want to work, see our families, have fun. But I work hard to say, ‘I’m done,’ and go to bed.”
“Rest is crucial for this job,” agreed Goldman. “If you don’t have adequate sleep, your cortisone levels are going to go up. When you’re exhausted and you’re working, you’re likely to miss something.” Goldman is consistent with early bedtimes around 9:00 or 9:30 PM, and he allows for a bit of “wind-down” time by reading for about 20 minutes before nodding off.
Goldman also sees a link between rest and improved interactions with patients. “There’s a direct correlation between number of hours worked in a row with respect to ‘customer service’ with patients,” he said.
But don’t aim for perfection. Allow some wiggle room for the time you spend asleep, Klein recommends. “We’ve always aimed for 8 hours, but there’s evidence that even 6 or 7 hours can be enough to allow you to recover as needed,” he said. “Optimally, you want that to be uninterrupted, but if not, a 10-minute power nap can help with mental clarity.”
Keep Searching, Keep Trying, Keep Training
Schopper was never, nor has she become, a gym rat. Still, “I knew I needed to build upper body strength,” she said. That meant expanding her fitness possibilities beyond the obvious. She discovered aerial arts — intense workouts using straps and other suspension tools to work every muscle in her body while hanging from the ceiling. Increased strength was a given, but she also seriously increased her range of motion.
For Schopper, the improvements to her lifestyle have been game changers. “I still have long days, but I’m no longer sore and tired after them,” she said. “I sleep better and have more energy. I’m proud of myself for putting the effort into this.”
A journey toward health and fitness may look different for everyone, but (as doctors frequently tell their patients) it’s a path anyone can follow.
“Being a doctor is not necessarily good for your health,” said Klein. “The body can handle the job, however, if you train for it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Fish Tanks to Cartoons
There was a recent Sermo post bemoaning the demise of fish tanks, and the calming they bring, in medical waiting rooms.
Aquariums, I agree, have a soporific effect on humans. I’m not immune myself on the rare occasions I encounter one. There’s something relaxing about watching the fish slowly glide back and forth while you admire their different colors, sizes, and patterns. This is why they persisted in a lot of places, such as videotapes (remember “Video Fish Tank”?), screen savers, and a key plot point in Finding Nemo.
Personally, When I get the occasional offer for a free waiting room TV that will play some customized feed about my practice and “ask your doctor” treatments, I send it off to be recycled into kitchen towels.
I think the real reason fish tanks are gone is that eternal bugaboo of medicine: money.
Margins in most practices, including mine, are thin, and a real fish tank (I’m not talking about a guppy in a bowl) aren’t cheap. They take, well, fish, and the most colorful ones are saltwater. Then they take a pump, heater, chemicals, food, plants, and decorations. Then you have to throw in the cost of a service with expertise in maintaining them (let’s face it, none of us have time to do that ourselves) ...
You want to add that to your overhead? Me neither.
My waiting room, as a result, is pretty bland. A handful of magazines, some books of classic Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doonesbury cartoons. The magazines are older, but relatively timeless ones, like issues of the Smithsonian or National Geographic. I don’t put out news magazines of any kind. If I’m not going to read the news, my patients shouldn’t have to either. My lobby should be relaxing.
We also live in an era where patients bring their own entertainment, on phones or iPads, to read while waiting. There are often days when I straighten up the waiting room while closing and the magazines haven’t been touched.
Yes, I miss fish tanks. But, like so many other things, they’ve become a casualty of modern medicine. They simply don’t make financial sense.
I’d rather cut corners in the waiting room than with patient care.
Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
There was a recent Sermo post bemoaning the demise of fish tanks, and the calming they bring, in medical waiting rooms.
Aquariums, I agree, have a soporific effect on humans. I’m not immune myself on the rare occasions I encounter one. There’s something relaxing about watching the fish slowly glide back and forth while you admire their different colors, sizes, and patterns. This is why they persisted in a lot of places, such as videotapes (remember “Video Fish Tank”?), screen savers, and a key plot point in Finding Nemo.
Personally, When I get the occasional offer for a free waiting room TV that will play some customized feed about my practice and “ask your doctor” treatments, I send it off to be recycled into kitchen towels.
I think the real reason fish tanks are gone is that eternal bugaboo of medicine: money.
Margins in most practices, including mine, are thin, and a real fish tank (I’m not talking about a guppy in a bowl) aren’t cheap. They take, well, fish, and the most colorful ones are saltwater. Then they take a pump, heater, chemicals, food, plants, and decorations. Then you have to throw in the cost of a service with expertise in maintaining them (let’s face it, none of us have time to do that ourselves) ...
You want to add that to your overhead? Me neither.
My waiting room, as a result, is pretty bland. A handful of magazines, some books of classic Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doonesbury cartoons. The magazines are older, but relatively timeless ones, like issues of the Smithsonian or National Geographic. I don’t put out news magazines of any kind. If I’m not going to read the news, my patients shouldn’t have to either. My lobby should be relaxing.
We also live in an era where patients bring their own entertainment, on phones or iPads, to read while waiting. There are often days when I straighten up the waiting room while closing and the magazines haven’t been touched.
Yes, I miss fish tanks. But, like so many other things, they’ve become a casualty of modern medicine. They simply don’t make financial sense.
I’d rather cut corners in the waiting room than with patient care.
Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
There was a recent Sermo post bemoaning the demise of fish tanks, and the calming they bring, in medical waiting rooms.
Aquariums, I agree, have a soporific effect on humans. I’m not immune myself on the rare occasions I encounter one. There’s something relaxing about watching the fish slowly glide back and forth while you admire their different colors, sizes, and patterns. This is why they persisted in a lot of places, such as videotapes (remember “Video Fish Tank”?), screen savers, and a key plot point in Finding Nemo.
Personally, When I get the occasional offer for a free waiting room TV that will play some customized feed about my practice and “ask your doctor” treatments, I send it off to be recycled into kitchen towels.
I think the real reason fish tanks are gone is that eternal bugaboo of medicine: money.
Margins in most practices, including mine, are thin, and a real fish tank (I’m not talking about a guppy in a bowl) aren’t cheap. They take, well, fish, and the most colorful ones are saltwater. Then they take a pump, heater, chemicals, food, plants, and decorations. Then you have to throw in the cost of a service with expertise in maintaining them (let’s face it, none of us have time to do that ourselves) ...
You want to add that to your overhead? Me neither.
My waiting room, as a result, is pretty bland. A handful of magazines, some books of classic Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doonesbury cartoons. The magazines are older, but relatively timeless ones, like issues of the Smithsonian or National Geographic. I don’t put out news magazines of any kind. If I’m not going to read the news, my patients shouldn’t have to either. My lobby should be relaxing.
We also live in an era where patients bring their own entertainment, on phones or iPads, to read while waiting. There are often days when I straighten up the waiting room while closing and the magazines haven’t been touched.
Yes, I miss fish tanks. But, like so many other things, they’ve become a casualty of modern medicine. They simply don’t make financial sense.
I’d rather cut corners in the waiting room than with patient care.
Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Trump Nominations for US Health Agencies Spark Controversy, Criticism, Praise
President-elect Donald Trump’s vision for the nation’s top health agencies is coming into focus with three nominations announced Nov. 22 that drew both criticism and praise:
- Surgeon and health researcher Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, to lead the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
- Former Republican congressman and physician David J. Weldon, MD, for director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
- Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat, MD, for surgeon general.
Earlier in November, Trump nominated vaccine skeptic and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Here’s what to know about the latest nominees, who, like Kennedy, must be confirmed by the US Senate.
Martin A. Makary
Currently a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chief of islet transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Makary co-invented in 2006 a surgery checklist that became a widely-used patient safety tool.
As a US FDA commissioner, Makary would preside over a $6.5 billion agency with more than 18,000 employees. The agency, part of HHS, oversees human and animal drugs and vaccines, medical devices, food, tobacco and other products. Some of Makary’s views align closely with those of HHS nominee Kennedy.
Makary is also chief medical officer of telehealth platform Sesame.
Makary was primarily known as a health researcher and author of books about price transparency and the cost of health care until the COVID-19 pandemic, when he became an outspoken critic of the federal response, lambasting restrictions and mandates advocated by the CDC and other public health officials.
In 2023, Makary told the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic that federal officials had ignored what he called “natural immunity.” Studies have shown that natural immunity is “at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better,” testified Makary.
Makary called for an overhaul of the US FDA in a 2021 Fox News opinion, saying that its culture was “defined by counterproductive rigidity and a refusal to adapt.”
Blind Spots, his most recent book, takes on what he calls “medical dogma” and challenges conventional views on subjects ranging from the microbiome to marijuana to cancer prevention, hormone replacement therapy, antibiotics and peanut allergies.
In an interview he posted to X, Makary blames inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of childhood illnesses. He cites increases in obesity, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, asthma, celiac disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as all potentially causally related to antibiotics given in childhood.
Makary is an advisor to two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and to Paragon Health Institute, begun in 2021 by two former top officials in the previous Trump administration.
Makary would “cut the bureaucratic red tape at the agency to make sure Americans get the medical cures and treatments they deserve,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in a press release.
While Los Angeles Times owner and physician-entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, MBBCh, MSc, praised the nomination of Makary (and the two other nominees) as “inspired,” other physicians criticized Makary for his anti-COVID mandate views and “fear-mongering” over COVID vaccine side effects.
Janette Nesheiwat
As surgeon general, Nesheiwat would serve as the top “health communicator in chief” and oversee the 6000 member US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.
She is a frequent medical contributor to Fox News and serves as a medical director for a group of urgent care clinics in New York. She received her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She is board-certified in family medicine.
Nesheiwat sells vitamin supplements on her website and in December will publish a book on “miracles in medicine” and her Christian faith.
Trump said in a statement that Nesheiwat “is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health. She is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.”
While Nesheiwat was critical of COVID mandates, she voiced more support for COVID vaccines and mask-wearing during the pandemic than her fellow nominees, leading some Trump supporters to criticize her nomination.
“A good appointment, happy about this: I got to know @DoctorJanette during the pandemic, exchanging information. She is very smart, thoughtful, interested in learning, and a compassionate doctor, and…a truly nice person,” noted vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said on X.
David J. Weldon
If confirmed, former congressman Weldon would oversee the sprawling CDC, an agency with a roughly $17 billion budget, 15,000 employees or contractors, and numerous centers covering everything from health statistics to vaccines to epidemiology.
After earning his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Weldon served in the US Army and US Army reserve. The Republican later served for 14 years in Congress representing Florida’s 15th district, which covers the Tampa region.
He now practices as an internist in Brevard County, Florida.
In Congress, Weldon raised concerns about the safety of some vaccines and promoted the false narrative that a former vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, caused autism, the Washington Post reported. Thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for more than two decades. He also introduced a bill to move vaccine safety oversight from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.
Trump said in a statement that Weldon “will proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic.”
But some physicians criticized Weldon for what they called his anti-vaccine views.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President-elect Donald Trump’s vision for the nation’s top health agencies is coming into focus with three nominations announced Nov. 22 that drew both criticism and praise:
- Surgeon and health researcher Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, to lead the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
- Former Republican congressman and physician David J. Weldon, MD, for director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
- Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat, MD, for surgeon general.
Earlier in November, Trump nominated vaccine skeptic and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Here’s what to know about the latest nominees, who, like Kennedy, must be confirmed by the US Senate.
Martin A. Makary
Currently a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chief of islet transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Makary co-invented in 2006 a surgery checklist that became a widely-used patient safety tool.
As a US FDA commissioner, Makary would preside over a $6.5 billion agency with more than 18,000 employees. The agency, part of HHS, oversees human and animal drugs and vaccines, medical devices, food, tobacco and other products. Some of Makary’s views align closely with those of HHS nominee Kennedy.
Makary is also chief medical officer of telehealth platform Sesame.
Makary was primarily known as a health researcher and author of books about price transparency and the cost of health care until the COVID-19 pandemic, when he became an outspoken critic of the federal response, lambasting restrictions and mandates advocated by the CDC and other public health officials.
In 2023, Makary told the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic that federal officials had ignored what he called “natural immunity.” Studies have shown that natural immunity is “at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better,” testified Makary.
Makary called for an overhaul of the US FDA in a 2021 Fox News opinion, saying that its culture was “defined by counterproductive rigidity and a refusal to adapt.”
Blind Spots, his most recent book, takes on what he calls “medical dogma” and challenges conventional views on subjects ranging from the microbiome to marijuana to cancer prevention, hormone replacement therapy, antibiotics and peanut allergies.
In an interview he posted to X, Makary blames inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of childhood illnesses. He cites increases in obesity, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, asthma, celiac disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as all potentially causally related to antibiotics given in childhood.
Makary is an advisor to two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and to Paragon Health Institute, begun in 2021 by two former top officials in the previous Trump administration.
Makary would “cut the bureaucratic red tape at the agency to make sure Americans get the medical cures and treatments they deserve,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in a press release.
While Los Angeles Times owner and physician-entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, MBBCh, MSc, praised the nomination of Makary (and the two other nominees) as “inspired,” other physicians criticized Makary for his anti-COVID mandate views and “fear-mongering” over COVID vaccine side effects.
Janette Nesheiwat
As surgeon general, Nesheiwat would serve as the top “health communicator in chief” and oversee the 6000 member US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.
She is a frequent medical contributor to Fox News and serves as a medical director for a group of urgent care clinics in New York. She received her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She is board-certified in family medicine.
Nesheiwat sells vitamin supplements on her website and in December will publish a book on “miracles in medicine” and her Christian faith.
Trump said in a statement that Nesheiwat “is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health. She is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.”
While Nesheiwat was critical of COVID mandates, she voiced more support for COVID vaccines and mask-wearing during the pandemic than her fellow nominees, leading some Trump supporters to criticize her nomination.
“A good appointment, happy about this: I got to know @DoctorJanette during the pandemic, exchanging information. She is very smart, thoughtful, interested in learning, and a compassionate doctor, and…a truly nice person,” noted vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said on X.
David J. Weldon
If confirmed, former congressman Weldon would oversee the sprawling CDC, an agency with a roughly $17 billion budget, 15,000 employees or contractors, and numerous centers covering everything from health statistics to vaccines to epidemiology.
After earning his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Weldon served in the US Army and US Army reserve. The Republican later served for 14 years in Congress representing Florida’s 15th district, which covers the Tampa region.
He now practices as an internist in Brevard County, Florida.
In Congress, Weldon raised concerns about the safety of some vaccines and promoted the false narrative that a former vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, caused autism, the Washington Post reported. Thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for more than two decades. He also introduced a bill to move vaccine safety oversight from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.
Trump said in a statement that Weldon “will proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic.”
But some physicians criticized Weldon for what they called his anti-vaccine views.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President-elect Donald Trump’s vision for the nation’s top health agencies is coming into focus with three nominations announced Nov. 22 that drew both criticism and praise:
- Surgeon and health researcher Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, to lead the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
- Former Republican congressman and physician David J. Weldon, MD, for director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
- Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat, MD, for surgeon general.
Earlier in November, Trump nominated vaccine skeptic and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Here’s what to know about the latest nominees, who, like Kennedy, must be confirmed by the US Senate.
Martin A. Makary
Currently a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chief of islet transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Makary co-invented in 2006 a surgery checklist that became a widely-used patient safety tool.
As a US FDA commissioner, Makary would preside over a $6.5 billion agency with more than 18,000 employees. The agency, part of HHS, oversees human and animal drugs and vaccines, medical devices, food, tobacco and other products. Some of Makary’s views align closely with those of HHS nominee Kennedy.
Makary is also chief medical officer of telehealth platform Sesame.
Makary was primarily known as a health researcher and author of books about price transparency and the cost of health care until the COVID-19 pandemic, when he became an outspoken critic of the federal response, lambasting restrictions and mandates advocated by the CDC and other public health officials.
In 2023, Makary told the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic that federal officials had ignored what he called “natural immunity.” Studies have shown that natural immunity is “at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better,” testified Makary.
Makary called for an overhaul of the US FDA in a 2021 Fox News opinion, saying that its culture was “defined by counterproductive rigidity and a refusal to adapt.”
Blind Spots, his most recent book, takes on what he calls “medical dogma” and challenges conventional views on subjects ranging from the microbiome to marijuana to cancer prevention, hormone replacement therapy, antibiotics and peanut allergies.
In an interview he posted to X, Makary blames inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of childhood illnesses. He cites increases in obesity, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, asthma, celiac disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as all potentially causally related to antibiotics given in childhood.
Makary is an advisor to two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and to Paragon Health Institute, begun in 2021 by two former top officials in the previous Trump administration.
Makary would “cut the bureaucratic red tape at the agency to make sure Americans get the medical cures and treatments they deserve,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in a press release.
While Los Angeles Times owner and physician-entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, MBBCh, MSc, praised the nomination of Makary (and the two other nominees) as “inspired,” other physicians criticized Makary for his anti-COVID mandate views and “fear-mongering” over COVID vaccine side effects.
Janette Nesheiwat
As surgeon general, Nesheiwat would serve as the top “health communicator in chief” and oversee the 6000 member US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.
She is a frequent medical contributor to Fox News and serves as a medical director for a group of urgent care clinics in New York. She received her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She is board-certified in family medicine.
Nesheiwat sells vitamin supplements on her website and in December will publish a book on “miracles in medicine” and her Christian faith.
Trump said in a statement that Nesheiwat “is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health. She is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.”
While Nesheiwat was critical of COVID mandates, she voiced more support for COVID vaccines and mask-wearing during the pandemic than her fellow nominees, leading some Trump supporters to criticize her nomination.
“A good appointment, happy about this: I got to know @DoctorJanette during the pandemic, exchanging information. She is very smart, thoughtful, interested in learning, and a compassionate doctor, and…a truly nice person,” noted vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said on X.
David J. Weldon
If confirmed, former congressman Weldon would oversee the sprawling CDC, an agency with a roughly $17 billion budget, 15,000 employees or contractors, and numerous centers covering everything from health statistics to vaccines to epidemiology.
After earning his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Weldon served in the US Army and US Army reserve. The Republican later served for 14 years in Congress representing Florida’s 15th district, which covers the Tampa region.
He now practices as an internist in Brevard County, Florida.
In Congress, Weldon raised concerns about the safety of some vaccines and promoted the false narrative that a former vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, caused autism, the Washington Post reported. Thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for more than two decades. He also introduced a bill to move vaccine safety oversight from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.
Trump said in a statement that Weldon “will proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic.”
But some physicians criticized Weldon for what they called his anti-vaccine views.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Recognizing Burnout: Why Physicians Often Miss the Signs in Themselves
Summary and Key Highlights
Summary: This section explores why physicians often struggle to recognize burnout within themselves, partly due to stigma and a tendency to focus on productivity over well-being. Dr. Tyra Fainstad shares personal experiences of burnout symptoms, emphasizing the importance of awareness and self-reflection. Recognizing and addressing burnout early can help physicians find healthier coping strategies, avoid productivity traps, and seek support.
Key Takeaways:
- Many physicians struggle to identify burnout due to stigma and self-blame.
- Awareness of burnout symptoms is essential for early intervention and healthy coping.
- Seeking support can prevent burnout from worsening and improve quality of life.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’
Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance
Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance
A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance
Next Medscape Masters Event:
Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.
Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Summary and Key Highlights
Summary: This section explores why physicians often struggle to recognize burnout within themselves, partly due to stigma and a tendency to focus on productivity over well-being. Dr. Tyra Fainstad shares personal experiences of burnout symptoms, emphasizing the importance of awareness and self-reflection. Recognizing and addressing burnout early can help physicians find healthier coping strategies, avoid productivity traps, and seek support.
Key Takeaways:
- Many physicians struggle to identify burnout due to stigma and self-blame.
- Awareness of burnout symptoms is essential for early intervention and healthy coping.
- Seeking support can prevent burnout from worsening and improve quality of life.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’
Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance
Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance
A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance
Next Medscape Masters Event:
Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.
Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Summary and Key Highlights
Summary: This section explores why physicians often struggle to recognize burnout within themselves, partly due to stigma and a tendency to focus on productivity over well-being. Dr. Tyra Fainstad shares personal experiences of burnout symptoms, emphasizing the importance of awareness and self-reflection. Recognizing and addressing burnout early can help physicians find healthier coping strategies, avoid productivity traps, and seek support.
Key Takeaways:
- Many physicians struggle to identify burnout due to stigma and self-blame.
- Awareness of burnout symptoms is essential for early intervention and healthy coping.
- Seeking support can prevent burnout from worsening and improve quality of life.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’
Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance
Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance
A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance
Next Medscape Masters Event:
Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.
Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.