User login
For MD-IQ use only
Medicare ‘offers’ cancer patient a choice: Less life or more debt
We’re gonna need a bigger meth lab
In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past 15 years, the TV show “Breaking Bad” details the spiraling rise and downfall of a high school chemistry teacher who, after developing a case of terminal lung cancer, starts producing methamphetamine to provide for his family in response to the steep cost of treatment for his cancer.
Meanwhile, here in 2023 in the real world, we have Paul Davis, a retired physician in Ohio, who’s being forced to choose between an expensive cancer treatment and bankrupting his family, since Medicare’s decided it doesn’t want to cover the cost. Hey, we’ve seen this one before!
A bit of backstory: In November 2019, Dr. Davis was diagnosed with uveal melanoma, a very rare type of cancer that affects eye tissue. The news got worse in 2022 when the cancer spread to his liver, a move which typically proves fatal within a year. However, in a stroke of great news, the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug Kimmtrak earlier that year, which could be used to treat his cancer. Not cure, of course, but it would give him more time.
His initial treatments with the drug went fine and were covered, but when he transferred his care from a hospital in Columbus to one closer to home, big problem. Medicare decided it didn’t like that hospital and abruptly cut off coverage, denying the local hospital’s claims. That leaves Dr. Davis on the hook for his cancer treatment, and it’s what you might call expensive. Expensive to the tune of $50,000.
A week.
Apparently the coding the local hospital submitted was wrong, indicating that Dr. Davis was receiving Kimmtrak for a type of cancer that the FDA hadn’t approved the drug for. So until the government bureaucracy works itself out, his treatment is on hold, leaving all his faith in Medicare working quickly to rectify its mistake. If it can rectify its mistake. We’re not hopeful.
And in case you were wondering, if Dr. Davis wanted to go full Walter White, the average street price of meth is about $20-$60 per gram, so to pay for his treatment, he’d need to make at least a kilogram of meth every week. That’s, uh, quite a lot of illegal drug, or what we here at the LOTME office would call a fun Saturday night.
When you give a mouse a movie
Researchers have been successfully testing Alzheimer drugs on mice for years, but none of the drugs has proved successful in humans. Recent work, however, might have found the missing link, and it’s a combination no one ever thought of before: mice and movies.
Turns out that Orson Welles’ 1958 film noir classic “Touch of Evil” tapped a part of the mouse brain that has been overlooked: the hippocampus, which is crucial for learning and memory. Previous researchers thought it was just used as a kind of GPS system, but that’s only partially true.
Not only did the mice choose to pay attention to the movie clip, but the hippocampus responded to the visual stimuli only when the rodents saw the scenes from the clip later in the order that they were presented and not in a scrambled order. These findings represent a “major paradigm shift” in studying mouse recall, Mayank Mehta, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said in a statement from the school.
This breakthrough could run parallel to Alzheimer’s patients struggling with similar defects. “Selective and episodic activation of the mouse hippocampus using a human movie opens up the possibility of directly testing human episodic memory disorders and therapies using mouse neurons, a major step forward,” said coauthor Chinmay Purandare, PhD, who is now at the University of California, San Francisco.
Who would have thought that a classic film would help advance Alzheimer research?
A less human way to study mosquitoes
We here at LOTME have a history with mosquitoes. We know they don’t like us, and they know that we don’t like them. Trust us, they know. So when humans gain a little ground in the war against the buzzy little bloodsuckers, we want to share the joy.
To know the enemy, scientists have to study the enemy, but there is a problem. “Many mosquito experiments still rely on human volunteers and animal subjects,” bioengineering graduate student Kevin Janson, said in a statement from Rice University. Most people don’t like being bitten by mosquitoes, so that kind of testing can be expensive.
Is there a way to automate the collection and processing of mosquito behavior data using inexpensive cameras and machine-learning software? We’re glad you asked, because Mr. Janson and the research team, which includes bioengineers from Rice and tropical medicine experts from Tulane University, have managed to eliminate the need for live volunteers by using patches of synthetic skin made with a 3D printer.
“Each patch of gelatin-like hydrogel comes complete with tiny passageways that can be filled with flowing blood” from a chicken, sheep, or cow, they explained, and proof-of-concept testing showed that mosquitoes would feed on hydrogels without any repellent and stay away from those treated with a repellent.
To conduct the feeding tests, the blood-infused hydrogels are placed in a clear plastic box that is surrounded by cameras.
A bunch of mosquitoes are then tossed in the box and the cameras record all their insect activities: how often they land at each location, how long they stay, whether or not they bite, how long they feed, etc. Humans don’t have to watch and don’t have to be food sources.
Humans don’t have to be food sources, and we just pictured the future of mosquito control. Imagine a dozen Arnold Schwarzenegger–style Terminators, covered in 3D-printed skin, walking through your neighborhood in the summer while wearing sweat-soaked, brightly colored clothing. The mosquitoes wouldn’t be able to stay away, but guess what? They’re feeding off robots with nonhuman skin and nonhuman blood, so we win. It’s good to have a cerebral cortex.
Getting medieval on brain surgery
Let’s get one thing clear: The so-called “Dark Ages” were not nearly as dark as they’re made out to be. For one thing, there’s a world beyond Western Europe. The Roman Empire didn’t collapse everywhere. But even in Western Europe, the centuries between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance were hardly lacking in cultural development.
That said, we wouldn’t want to be in the position of the seventh-century noblewoman whose remains were recently uncovered in a Byzantine fortress in central Italy with multiple cross-shaped incisions in her skull. Yes, this unfortunate woman underwent at least two brain surgeries.
Then again, maybe not. Nothing like it had been discovered at the site, and while the markings – signs of a procedure called trepanation – can be surgical in nature, there are other explanations. For example, the Avar people practiced ritual trepanation during the same time period, but they were hundreds of miles away in the Carpathian mountains, and there was no evidence to support that a different form of ritualistic trepanation ever took place in Byzantine-era Italy.
The investigators then moved on to a form of judicial punishment called decalvatio, which involves mutilation by scalping. Look, the Dark Ages weren’t dark, but no one said they were fun. Anyway, this was discarded, since decalvatio was only meted out to soldiers who deserted the battlefield.
That brings us back to surgery. While one of the trepanations was fully engraved into her skull, indicating that the woman died soon after the surgery, she also bore indications of a healed trepanation. A 50% success rate isn’t terrible for our medieval surgeon. Sure, the Incas managed 80%, but even during the Civil War brain surgery only had a 50% success rate. And that’s the end of the story, nothing more to say about our medieval Italian woman.
Nope. Nothing at all.
Fine. While a surgical procedure was deemed most likely, the study investigators found no direct evidence of a medical condition. No trauma, no tumor, nothing. Just a couple of suggestions of “a systemic pathological condition,” they said. Okay, we swear, it really wasn’t that bad in the Middle [Editor’s note: Approximately 5,000 more words on medieval culture not included. This is a medical column, thank you very much.]
We’re gonna need a bigger meth lab
In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past 15 years, the TV show “Breaking Bad” details the spiraling rise and downfall of a high school chemistry teacher who, after developing a case of terminal lung cancer, starts producing methamphetamine to provide for his family in response to the steep cost of treatment for his cancer.
Meanwhile, here in 2023 in the real world, we have Paul Davis, a retired physician in Ohio, who’s being forced to choose between an expensive cancer treatment and bankrupting his family, since Medicare’s decided it doesn’t want to cover the cost. Hey, we’ve seen this one before!
A bit of backstory: In November 2019, Dr. Davis was diagnosed with uveal melanoma, a very rare type of cancer that affects eye tissue. The news got worse in 2022 when the cancer spread to his liver, a move which typically proves fatal within a year. However, in a stroke of great news, the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug Kimmtrak earlier that year, which could be used to treat his cancer. Not cure, of course, but it would give him more time.
His initial treatments with the drug went fine and were covered, but when he transferred his care from a hospital in Columbus to one closer to home, big problem. Medicare decided it didn’t like that hospital and abruptly cut off coverage, denying the local hospital’s claims. That leaves Dr. Davis on the hook for his cancer treatment, and it’s what you might call expensive. Expensive to the tune of $50,000.
A week.
Apparently the coding the local hospital submitted was wrong, indicating that Dr. Davis was receiving Kimmtrak for a type of cancer that the FDA hadn’t approved the drug for. So until the government bureaucracy works itself out, his treatment is on hold, leaving all his faith in Medicare working quickly to rectify its mistake. If it can rectify its mistake. We’re not hopeful.
And in case you were wondering, if Dr. Davis wanted to go full Walter White, the average street price of meth is about $20-$60 per gram, so to pay for his treatment, he’d need to make at least a kilogram of meth every week. That’s, uh, quite a lot of illegal drug, or what we here at the LOTME office would call a fun Saturday night.
When you give a mouse a movie
Researchers have been successfully testing Alzheimer drugs on mice for years, but none of the drugs has proved successful in humans. Recent work, however, might have found the missing link, and it’s a combination no one ever thought of before: mice and movies.
Turns out that Orson Welles’ 1958 film noir classic “Touch of Evil” tapped a part of the mouse brain that has been overlooked: the hippocampus, which is crucial for learning and memory. Previous researchers thought it was just used as a kind of GPS system, but that’s only partially true.
Not only did the mice choose to pay attention to the movie clip, but the hippocampus responded to the visual stimuli only when the rodents saw the scenes from the clip later in the order that they were presented and not in a scrambled order. These findings represent a “major paradigm shift” in studying mouse recall, Mayank Mehta, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said in a statement from the school.
This breakthrough could run parallel to Alzheimer’s patients struggling with similar defects. “Selective and episodic activation of the mouse hippocampus using a human movie opens up the possibility of directly testing human episodic memory disorders and therapies using mouse neurons, a major step forward,” said coauthor Chinmay Purandare, PhD, who is now at the University of California, San Francisco.
Who would have thought that a classic film would help advance Alzheimer research?
A less human way to study mosquitoes
We here at LOTME have a history with mosquitoes. We know they don’t like us, and they know that we don’t like them. Trust us, they know. So when humans gain a little ground in the war against the buzzy little bloodsuckers, we want to share the joy.
To know the enemy, scientists have to study the enemy, but there is a problem. “Many mosquito experiments still rely on human volunteers and animal subjects,” bioengineering graduate student Kevin Janson, said in a statement from Rice University. Most people don’t like being bitten by mosquitoes, so that kind of testing can be expensive.
Is there a way to automate the collection and processing of mosquito behavior data using inexpensive cameras and machine-learning software? We’re glad you asked, because Mr. Janson and the research team, which includes bioengineers from Rice and tropical medicine experts from Tulane University, have managed to eliminate the need for live volunteers by using patches of synthetic skin made with a 3D printer.
“Each patch of gelatin-like hydrogel comes complete with tiny passageways that can be filled with flowing blood” from a chicken, sheep, or cow, they explained, and proof-of-concept testing showed that mosquitoes would feed on hydrogels without any repellent and stay away from those treated with a repellent.
To conduct the feeding tests, the blood-infused hydrogels are placed in a clear plastic box that is surrounded by cameras.
A bunch of mosquitoes are then tossed in the box and the cameras record all their insect activities: how often they land at each location, how long they stay, whether or not they bite, how long they feed, etc. Humans don’t have to watch and don’t have to be food sources.
Humans don’t have to be food sources, and we just pictured the future of mosquito control. Imagine a dozen Arnold Schwarzenegger–style Terminators, covered in 3D-printed skin, walking through your neighborhood in the summer while wearing sweat-soaked, brightly colored clothing. The mosquitoes wouldn’t be able to stay away, but guess what? They’re feeding off robots with nonhuman skin and nonhuman blood, so we win. It’s good to have a cerebral cortex.
Getting medieval on brain surgery
Let’s get one thing clear: The so-called “Dark Ages” were not nearly as dark as they’re made out to be. For one thing, there’s a world beyond Western Europe. The Roman Empire didn’t collapse everywhere. But even in Western Europe, the centuries between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance were hardly lacking in cultural development.
That said, we wouldn’t want to be in the position of the seventh-century noblewoman whose remains were recently uncovered in a Byzantine fortress in central Italy with multiple cross-shaped incisions in her skull. Yes, this unfortunate woman underwent at least two brain surgeries.
Then again, maybe not. Nothing like it had been discovered at the site, and while the markings – signs of a procedure called trepanation – can be surgical in nature, there are other explanations. For example, the Avar people practiced ritual trepanation during the same time period, but they were hundreds of miles away in the Carpathian mountains, and there was no evidence to support that a different form of ritualistic trepanation ever took place in Byzantine-era Italy.
The investigators then moved on to a form of judicial punishment called decalvatio, which involves mutilation by scalping. Look, the Dark Ages weren’t dark, but no one said they were fun. Anyway, this was discarded, since decalvatio was only meted out to soldiers who deserted the battlefield.
That brings us back to surgery. While one of the trepanations was fully engraved into her skull, indicating that the woman died soon after the surgery, she also bore indications of a healed trepanation. A 50% success rate isn’t terrible for our medieval surgeon. Sure, the Incas managed 80%, but even during the Civil War brain surgery only had a 50% success rate. And that’s the end of the story, nothing more to say about our medieval Italian woman.
Nope. Nothing at all.
Fine. While a surgical procedure was deemed most likely, the study investigators found no direct evidence of a medical condition. No trauma, no tumor, nothing. Just a couple of suggestions of “a systemic pathological condition,” they said. Okay, we swear, it really wasn’t that bad in the Middle [Editor’s note: Approximately 5,000 more words on medieval culture not included. This is a medical column, thank you very much.]
We’re gonna need a bigger meth lab
In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past 15 years, the TV show “Breaking Bad” details the spiraling rise and downfall of a high school chemistry teacher who, after developing a case of terminal lung cancer, starts producing methamphetamine to provide for his family in response to the steep cost of treatment for his cancer.
Meanwhile, here in 2023 in the real world, we have Paul Davis, a retired physician in Ohio, who’s being forced to choose between an expensive cancer treatment and bankrupting his family, since Medicare’s decided it doesn’t want to cover the cost. Hey, we’ve seen this one before!
A bit of backstory: In November 2019, Dr. Davis was diagnosed with uveal melanoma, a very rare type of cancer that affects eye tissue. The news got worse in 2022 when the cancer spread to his liver, a move which typically proves fatal within a year. However, in a stroke of great news, the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug Kimmtrak earlier that year, which could be used to treat his cancer. Not cure, of course, but it would give him more time.
His initial treatments with the drug went fine and were covered, but when he transferred his care from a hospital in Columbus to one closer to home, big problem. Medicare decided it didn’t like that hospital and abruptly cut off coverage, denying the local hospital’s claims. That leaves Dr. Davis on the hook for his cancer treatment, and it’s what you might call expensive. Expensive to the tune of $50,000.
A week.
Apparently the coding the local hospital submitted was wrong, indicating that Dr. Davis was receiving Kimmtrak for a type of cancer that the FDA hadn’t approved the drug for. So until the government bureaucracy works itself out, his treatment is on hold, leaving all his faith in Medicare working quickly to rectify its mistake. If it can rectify its mistake. We’re not hopeful.
And in case you were wondering, if Dr. Davis wanted to go full Walter White, the average street price of meth is about $20-$60 per gram, so to pay for his treatment, he’d need to make at least a kilogram of meth every week. That’s, uh, quite a lot of illegal drug, or what we here at the LOTME office would call a fun Saturday night.
When you give a mouse a movie
Researchers have been successfully testing Alzheimer drugs on mice for years, but none of the drugs has proved successful in humans. Recent work, however, might have found the missing link, and it’s a combination no one ever thought of before: mice and movies.
Turns out that Orson Welles’ 1958 film noir classic “Touch of Evil” tapped a part of the mouse brain that has been overlooked: the hippocampus, which is crucial for learning and memory. Previous researchers thought it was just used as a kind of GPS system, but that’s only partially true.
Not only did the mice choose to pay attention to the movie clip, but the hippocampus responded to the visual stimuli only when the rodents saw the scenes from the clip later in the order that they were presented and not in a scrambled order. These findings represent a “major paradigm shift” in studying mouse recall, Mayank Mehta, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said in a statement from the school.
This breakthrough could run parallel to Alzheimer’s patients struggling with similar defects. “Selective and episodic activation of the mouse hippocampus using a human movie opens up the possibility of directly testing human episodic memory disorders and therapies using mouse neurons, a major step forward,” said coauthor Chinmay Purandare, PhD, who is now at the University of California, San Francisco.
Who would have thought that a classic film would help advance Alzheimer research?
A less human way to study mosquitoes
We here at LOTME have a history with mosquitoes. We know they don’t like us, and they know that we don’t like them. Trust us, they know. So when humans gain a little ground in the war against the buzzy little bloodsuckers, we want to share the joy.
To know the enemy, scientists have to study the enemy, but there is a problem. “Many mosquito experiments still rely on human volunteers and animal subjects,” bioengineering graduate student Kevin Janson, said in a statement from Rice University. Most people don’t like being bitten by mosquitoes, so that kind of testing can be expensive.
Is there a way to automate the collection and processing of mosquito behavior data using inexpensive cameras and machine-learning software? We’re glad you asked, because Mr. Janson and the research team, which includes bioengineers from Rice and tropical medicine experts from Tulane University, have managed to eliminate the need for live volunteers by using patches of synthetic skin made with a 3D printer.
“Each patch of gelatin-like hydrogel comes complete with tiny passageways that can be filled with flowing blood” from a chicken, sheep, or cow, they explained, and proof-of-concept testing showed that mosquitoes would feed on hydrogels without any repellent and stay away from those treated with a repellent.
To conduct the feeding tests, the blood-infused hydrogels are placed in a clear plastic box that is surrounded by cameras.
A bunch of mosquitoes are then tossed in the box and the cameras record all their insect activities: how often they land at each location, how long they stay, whether or not they bite, how long they feed, etc. Humans don’t have to watch and don’t have to be food sources.
Humans don’t have to be food sources, and we just pictured the future of mosquito control. Imagine a dozen Arnold Schwarzenegger–style Terminators, covered in 3D-printed skin, walking through your neighborhood in the summer while wearing sweat-soaked, brightly colored clothing. The mosquitoes wouldn’t be able to stay away, but guess what? They’re feeding off robots with nonhuman skin and nonhuman blood, so we win. It’s good to have a cerebral cortex.
Getting medieval on brain surgery
Let’s get one thing clear: The so-called “Dark Ages” were not nearly as dark as they’re made out to be. For one thing, there’s a world beyond Western Europe. The Roman Empire didn’t collapse everywhere. But even in Western Europe, the centuries between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance were hardly lacking in cultural development.
That said, we wouldn’t want to be in the position of the seventh-century noblewoman whose remains were recently uncovered in a Byzantine fortress in central Italy with multiple cross-shaped incisions in her skull. Yes, this unfortunate woman underwent at least two brain surgeries.
Then again, maybe not. Nothing like it had been discovered at the site, and while the markings – signs of a procedure called trepanation – can be surgical in nature, there are other explanations. For example, the Avar people practiced ritual trepanation during the same time period, but they were hundreds of miles away in the Carpathian mountains, and there was no evidence to support that a different form of ritualistic trepanation ever took place in Byzantine-era Italy.
The investigators then moved on to a form of judicial punishment called decalvatio, which involves mutilation by scalping. Look, the Dark Ages weren’t dark, but no one said they were fun. Anyway, this was discarded, since decalvatio was only meted out to soldiers who deserted the battlefield.
That brings us back to surgery. While one of the trepanations was fully engraved into her skull, indicating that the woman died soon after the surgery, she also bore indications of a healed trepanation. A 50% success rate isn’t terrible for our medieval surgeon. Sure, the Incas managed 80%, but even during the Civil War brain surgery only had a 50% success rate. And that’s the end of the story, nothing more to say about our medieval Italian woman.
Nope. Nothing at all.
Fine. While a surgical procedure was deemed most likely, the study investigators found no direct evidence of a medical condition. No trauma, no tumor, nothing. Just a couple of suggestions of “a systemic pathological condition,” they said. Okay, we swear, it really wasn’t that bad in the Middle [Editor’s note: Approximately 5,000 more words on medieval culture not included. This is a medical column, thank you very much.]
Using devices to calm children can backfire long term
according to developmental behavioral pediatricians at University of Michigan Health C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital, Ann Arbor.
What to know
- Using a mobile device to distract children from how they are feeling may displace opportunities for them to develop independent, alternative methods to self-regulate, especially in early childhood.
- Signs of increased dysregulation could include rapid shifts between sadness and excitement, a sudden change in mood or feelings, and heightened impulsivity.
- The association between device-calming and emotional consequences may be particularly high among young boys and children who are already experiencing hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and a strong temperament that makes them more likely to react intensely to feelings such as anger, frustration, and sadness.
- While occasional use of media to occupy children is expected and understandable, it is important that it not become a primary or regular soothing tool, and children should be given clear expectations of when and where devices can be used.
- The preschool-to-kindergarten period is a developmental stage in which children may be more likely to exhibit difficult behaviors, such as tantrums, defiance, and intense emotions, but parents should resist using devices as a parenting strategy.
This is a summary of the article, “Longitudinal Association Between Use of Mobile Devices for Calming and Emotional Reactivity and Executive Functioning in Children Aged 3 to 5 Years,” published in JAMA Pediatrics on Dec. 20, 2022. The full article can be found on jamanetwork.com. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
according to developmental behavioral pediatricians at University of Michigan Health C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital, Ann Arbor.
What to know
- Using a mobile device to distract children from how they are feeling may displace opportunities for them to develop independent, alternative methods to self-regulate, especially in early childhood.
- Signs of increased dysregulation could include rapid shifts between sadness and excitement, a sudden change in mood or feelings, and heightened impulsivity.
- The association between device-calming and emotional consequences may be particularly high among young boys and children who are already experiencing hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and a strong temperament that makes them more likely to react intensely to feelings such as anger, frustration, and sadness.
- While occasional use of media to occupy children is expected and understandable, it is important that it not become a primary or regular soothing tool, and children should be given clear expectations of when and where devices can be used.
- The preschool-to-kindergarten period is a developmental stage in which children may be more likely to exhibit difficult behaviors, such as tantrums, defiance, and intense emotions, but parents should resist using devices as a parenting strategy.
This is a summary of the article, “Longitudinal Association Between Use of Mobile Devices for Calming and Emotional Reactivity and Executive Functioning in Children Aged 3 to 5 Years,” published in JAMA Pediatrics on Dec. 20, 2022. The full article can be found on jamanetwork.com. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
according to developmental behavioral pediatricians at University of Michigan Health C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital, Ann Arbor.
What to know
- Using a mobile device to distract children from how they are feeling may displace opportunities for them to develop independent, alternative methods to self-regulate, especially in early childhood.
- Signs of increased dysregulation could include rapid shifts between sadness and excitement, a sudden change in mood or feelings, and heightened impulsivity.
- The association between device-calming and emotional consequences may be particularly high among young boys and children who are already experiencing hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and a strong temperament that makes them more likely to react intensely to feelings such as anger, frustration, and sadness.
- While occasional use of media to occupy children is expected and understandable, it is important that it not become a primary or regular soothing tool, and children should be given clear expectations of when and where devices can be used.
- The preschool-to-kindergarten period is a developmental stage in which children may be more likely to exhibit difficult behaviors, such as tantrums, defiance, and intense emotions, but parents should resist using devices as a parenting strategy.
This is a summary of the article, “Longitudinal Association Between Use of Mobile Devices for Calming and Emotional Reactivity and Executive Functioning in Children Aged 3 to 5 Years,” published in JAMA Pediatrics on Dec. 20, 2022. The full article can be found on jamanetwork.com. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Expelled from high school, Alister Martin became a Harvard doc
It’s not often that a high school brawl with gang members sets you down a path to becoming a Harvard-trained doctor. But that’s exactly how Alister Martin’s life unfolded.
In retrospect, he should have seen the whole thing coming. That night at the party, his best friend was attacked by a gang member from a nearby high school. Martin was not in a gang but he jumped into the fray to defend his friend.
“I wanted to save the day, but that’s not what happened,” he says. “There were just too many of them.”
When his mother rushed to the hospital, he was so bruised and bloody that she couldn’t recognize him at first. Ever since he was a baby, she had done her best to shield him from the neighborhood where gang violence was a regular disruption. But it hadn’t worked.
“My high school had a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence,” Martin says, “so even though I wasn’t in a gang, I was kicked out.”
Now expelled from high school, his mother wanted him out of town, fearing gang retaliation, or that Martin might seek vengeance on the boy who had brutally beaten him. So, the biology teacher and single mom who worked numerous jobs to keep them afloat, came up with a plan to get him far away from any temptations.
Martin had loved tennis since middle school, when his 8th-grade math teacher, Billie Weise, also a tennis pro, got him a job as a court sweeper at an upscale tennis club nearby. He knew nothing then about tennis but would come to fall in love with the sport. To get her son out of town, Martin’s mother took out loans for $30,000 and sent him to a Florida tennis training camp.
After 6 months of training, Martin, who earned a GED degree while attending the camp, was offered a scholarship to play tennis at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The transition to college was tough, however. He was nervous and felt out of place. “I could have died that first day. It became so obvious how poorly my high school education had prepared me for this.”
But the unease he felt was also motivating in a way. Worried about failure, “he locked himself in a room with another student and they studied day and night,” recalls Kamal Khan, director of the office for diversity and academic success at Rutgers. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
And Martin displayed other attributes that would draw others to him – and later prove important in his career as a doctor. His ability to display empathy and interact with students and teachers separated him from his peers, Mr. Khan says. “There’re a lot of really smart students out there,” he says, “but not many who understand people like Martin.”
After graduating, he decided to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He’d wanted to be a doctor since he was 10 years old after his mom was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. He remembers overhearing a conversation she was having with a family friend about where he would go if she died.
“That’s when I knew it was serious,” he says.
Doctors saved her life, and it’s something he’ll never forget. But it wasn’t until his time at Rutgers that he finally had the confidence to think he could succeed in medical school.
Martin went on to attend Harvard Medical School and Harvard Kennedy School of Government as well as serving as chief resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was also a fellow at the White House in the Office of the Vice President and today, he’s an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston..
He is most at home in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he works as an emergency medical specialist. For him, the ER is the first line of defense for meeting the community’s health needs. Growing up in Neptune, the ER “was where poor folks got their care,” he says. His mom worked two jobs and when she got off work at 8 p.m. there was no pediatrician open. “When I was sick as a kid we always went to the emergency room,” he says.
While at Harvard, he also pursued a degree from the Kennedy School of Government, because of the huge role he feels that politics play in our health care system and especially in bringing care to impoverished communities. And since then he’s taken numerous steps to bridge the gap.
Addiction, for example, became an important issue for Martin, ever since a patient he encountered in his first week as an internist. She was a mom of two who had recently gotten surgery because she broke her ankle falling down the stairs at her child’s daycare, he says. Prescribed oxycodone, she feared she was becoming addicted and needed help. But at the time, there was nothing the ER could do.
“I remember that look in her eyes when we had to turn her away,” he says.
Martin has worked to change protocol at his hospital and others throughout the nation so they can be better set up to treat opioid addiction. He’s the founder of GetWaivered, an organization that trains doctors throughout the country to use evidence-based medicine to manage opioid addiction. In the U.S. doctors need what’s called a DEA X waiver to be able to prescribe buprenorphine to opioid-addicted patients. That means that currently only about 1% of all emergency room doctors nationwide have the waiver and without it, it’s impossible to help patients when they need it the most.
Shuhan He, MD, an internist with Martin at Massachusetts General Hospital who also works on the GetWaivered program, says Martin has a particular trait that helps him be successful.
“He’s a doer and when he sees a problem, he’s gonna try and fix it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s not often that a high school brawl with gang members sets you down a path to becoming a Harvard-trained doctor. But that’s exactly how Alister Martin’s life unfolded.
In retrospect, he should have seen the whole thing coming. That night at the party, his best friend was attacked by a gang member from a nearby high school. Martin was not in a gang but he jumped into the fray to defend his friend.
“I wanted to save the day, but that’s not what happened,” he says. “There were just too many of them.”
When his mother rushed to the hospital, he was so bruised and bloody that she couldn’t recognize him at first. Ever since he was a baby, she had done her best to shield him from the neighborhood where gang violence was a regular disruption. But it hadn’t worked.
“My high school had a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence,” Martin says, “so even though I wasn’t in a gang, I was kicked out.”
Now expelled from high school, his mother wanted him out of town, fearing gang retaliation, or that Martin might seek vengeance on the boy who had brutally beaten him. So, the biology teacher and single mom who worked numerous jobs to keep them afloat, came up with a plan to get him far away from any temptations.
Martin had loved tennis since middle school, when his 8th-grade math teacher, Billie Weise, also a tennis pro, got him a job as a court sweeper at an upscale tennis club nearby. He knew nothing then about tennis but would come to fall in love with the sport. To get her son out of town, Martin’s mother took out loans for $30,000 and sent him to a Florida tennis training camp.
After 6 months of training, Martin, who earned a GED degree while attending the camp, was offered a scholarship to play tennis at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The transition to college was tough, however. He was nervous and felt out of place. “I could have died that first day. It became so obvious how poorly my high school education had prepared me for this.”
But the unease he felt was also motivating in a way. Worried about failure, “he locked himself in a room with another student and they studied day and night,” recalls Kamal Khan, director of the office for diversity and academic success at Rutgers. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
And Martin displayed other attributes that would draw others to him – and later prove important in his career as a doctor. His ability to display empathy and interact with students and teachers separated him from his peers, Mr. Khan says. “There’re a lot of really smart students out there,” he says, “but not many who understand people like Martin.”
After graduating, he decided to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He’d wanted to be a doctor since he was 10 years old after his mom was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. He remembers overhearing a conversation she was having with a family friend about where he would go if she died.
“That’s when I knew it was serious,” he says.
Doctors saved her life, and it’s something he’ll never forget. But it wasn’t until his time at Rutgers that he finally had the confidence to think he could succeed in medical school.
Martin went on to attend Harvard Medical School and Harvard Kennedy School of Government as well as serving as chief resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was also a fellow at the White House in the Office of the Vice President and today, he’s an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston..
He is most at home in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he works as an emergency medical specialist. For him, the ER is the first line of defense for meeting the community’s health needs. Growing up in Neptune, the ER “was where poor folks got their care,” he says. His mom worked two jobs and when she got off work at 8 p.m. there was no pediatrician open. “When I was sick as a kid we always went to the emergency room,” he says.
While at Harvard, he also pursued a degree from the Kennedy School of Government, because of the huge role he feels that politics play in our health care system and especially in bringing care to impoverished communities. And since then he’s taken numerous steps to bridge the gap.
Addiction, for example, became an important issue for Martin, ever since a patient he encountered in his first week as an internist. She was a mom of two who had recently gotten surgery because she broke her ankle falling down the stairs at her child’s daycare, he says. Prescribed oxycodone, she feared she was becoming addicted and needed help. But at the time, there was nothing the ER could do.
“I remember that look in her eyes when we had to turn her away,” he says.
Martin has worked to change protocol at his hospital and others throughout the nation so they can be better set up to treat opioid addiction. He’s the founder of GetWaivered, an organization that trains doctors throughout the country to use evidence-based medicine to manage opioid addiction. In the U.S. doctors need what’s called a DEA X waiver to be able to prescribe buprenorphine to opioid-addicted patients. That means that currently only about 1% of all emergency room doctors nationwide have the waiver and without it, it’s impossible to help patients when they need it the most.
Shuhan He, MD, an internist with Martin at Massachusetts General Hospital who also works on the GetWaivered program, says Martin has a particular trait that helps him be successful.
“He’s a doer and when he sees a problem, he’s gonna try and fix it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s not often that a high school brawl with gang members sets you down a path to becoming a Harvard-trained doctor. But that’s exactly how Alister Martin’s life unfolded.
In retrospect, he should have seen the whole thing coming. That night at the party, his best friend was attacked by a gang member from a nearby high school. Martin was not in a gang but he jumped into the fray to defend his friend.
“I wanted to save the day, but that’s not what happened,” he says. “There were just too many of them.”
When his mother rushed to the hospital, he was so bruised and bloody that she couldn’t recognize him at first. Ever since he was a baby, she had done her best to shield him from the neighborhood where gang violence was a regular disruption. But it hadn’t worked.
“My high school had a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence,” Martin says, “so even though I wasn’t in a gang, I was kicked out.”
Now expelled from high school, his mother wanted him out of town, fearing gang retaliation, or that Martin might seek vengeance on the boy who had brutally beaten him. So, the biology teacher and single mom who worked numerous jobs to keep them afloat, came up with a plan to get him far away from any temptations.
Martin had loved tennis since middle school, when his 8th-grade math teacher, Billie Weise, also a tennis pro, got him a job as a court sweeper at an upscale tennis club nearby. He knew nothing then about tennis but would come to fall in love with the sport. To get her son out of town, Martin’s mother took out loans for $30,000 and sent him to a Florida tennis training camp.
After 6 months of training, Martin, who earned a GED degree while attending the camp, was offered a scholarship to play tennis at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The transition to college was tough, however. He was nervous and felt out of place. “I could have died that first day. It became so obvious how poorly my high school education had prepared me for this.”
But the unease he felt was also motivating in a way. Worried about failure, “he locked himself in a room with another student and they studied day and night,” recalls Kamal Khan, director of the office for diversity and academic success at Rutgers. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
And Martin displayed other attributes that would draw others to him – and later prove important in his career as a doctor. His ability to display empathy and interact with students and teachers separated him from his peers, Mr. Khan says. “There’re a lot of really smart students out there,” he says, “but not many who understand people like Martin.”
After graduating, he decided to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He’d wanted to be a doctor since he was 10 years old after his mom was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. He remembers overhearing a conversation she was having with a family friend about where he would go if she died.
“That’s when I knew it was serious,” he says.
Doctors saved her life, and it’s something he’ll never forget. But it wasn’t until his time at Rutgers that he finally had the confidence to think he could succeed in medical school.
Martin went on to attend Harvard Medical School and Harvard Kennedy School of Government as well as serving as chief resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was also a fellow at the White House in the Office of the Vice President and today, he’s an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston..
He is most at home in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he works as an emergency medical specialist. For him, the ER is the first line of defense for meeting the community’s health needs. Growing up in Neptune, the ER “was where poor folks got their care,” he says. His mom worked two jobs and when she got off work at 8 p.m. there was no pediatrician open. “When I was sick as a kid we always went to the emergency room,” he says.
While at Harvard, he also pursued a degree from the Kennedy School of Government, because of the huge role he feels that politics play in our health care system and especially in bringing care to impoverished communities. And since then he’s taken numerous steps to bridge the gap.
Addiction, for example, became an important issue for Martin, ever since a patient he encountered in his first week as an internist. She was a mom of two who had recently gotten surgery because she broke her ankle falling down the stairs at her child’s daycare, he says. Prescribed oxycodone, she feared she was becoming addicted and needed help. But at the time, there was nothing the ER could do.
“I remember that look in her eyes when we had to turn her away,” he says.
Martin has worked to change protocol at his hospital and others throughout the nation so they can be better set up to treat opioid addiction. He’s the founder of GetWaivered, an organization that trains doctors throughout the country to use evidence-based medicine to manage opioid addiction. In the U.S. doctors need what’s called a DEA X waiver to be able to prescribe buprenorphine to opioid-addicted patients. That means that currently only about 1% of all emergency room doctors nationwide have the waiver and without it, it’s impossible to help patients when they need it the most.
Shuhan He, MD, an internist with Martin at Massachusetts General Hospital who also works on the GetWaivered program, says Martin has a particular trait that helps him be successful.
“He’s a doer and when he sees a problem, he’s gonna try and fix it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Joint effort: CBD not just innocent bystander in weed
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
I visited a legal cannabis dispensary in Massachusetts a few years ago, mostly to see what the hype was about. There I was, knowing basically nothing about pot, as the gentle stoner behind the counter explained to me the differences between the various strains. Acapulco Gold is buoyant and energizing; Purple Kush is sleepy, relaxed, dissociative. Here’s a strain that makes you feel nostalgic; here’s one that helps you focus. It was as complicated and as oddly specific as a fancy wine tasting – and, I had a feeling, about as reliable.
It’s a plant, after all, and though delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical responsible for its euphoric effects, it is far from the only substance in there.
The second most important compound in cannabis is cannabidiol, and most people will tell you that CBD is the gentle yin to THC’s paranoiac yang. Hence your local ganja barista reminding you that, if you don›t want all those anxiety-inducing side effects of THC, grab a strain with a nice CBD balance.
But is it true? A new study appearing in JAMA Network Open suggests, in fact, that it’s quite the opposite. This study is from Austin Zamarripa and colleagues, who clearly sit at the researcher cool kids table.
Eighteen adults who had abstained from marijuana use for at least a month participated in this trial (which is way more fun than anything we do in my lab at Yale). In random order, separated by at least a week, they ate some special brownies.
Condition one was a control brownie, condition two was a brownie containing 20 mg of THC, and condition three was a brownie containing 20 mg of THC and 640 mg of CBD. Participants were assigned each condition in random order, separated by at least a week.
A side note on doses for those of you who, like me, are not totally weed literate. A dose of 20 mg of THC is about a third of what you might find in a typical joint these days (though it’s about double the THC content of a joint in the ‘70s – I believe the technical term is “doobie”). And 640 mg of CBD is a decent dose, as 5 mg per kilogram is what some folks start with to achieve therapeutic effects.
Both THC and CBD interact with the cytochrome p450 system in the liver. This matters when you’re ingesting them instead of smoking them because you have first-pass metabolism to contend with. And, because of that p450 inhibition, it’s possible that CBD might actually increase the amount of THC that gets into your bloodstream from the brownie, or gummy, or pizza sauce, or whatever.
Let’s get to the results, starting with blood THC concentration. It’s not subtle. With CBD on board the THC concentration rises higher faster, with roughly double the area under the curve.
And, unsurprisingly, the subjective experience correlated with those higher levels. Individuals rated the “drug effect” higher with the combo. But, interestingly, the “pleasant” drug effect didn’t change much, while the unpleasant effects were substantially higher. No mitigation of THC anxiety here – quite the opposite. CBD made the anxiety worse.
Cognitive effects were equally profound. Scores on a digit symbol substitution test and a paced serial addition task were all substantially worse when CBD was mixed with THC.
And for those of you who want some more objective measures, check out the heart rate. Despite the purported “calming” nature of CBD, heart rates were way higher when individuals were exposed to both chemicals.
The picture here is quite clear, though the mechanism is not. At least when talking edibles, CBD enhances the effects of THC, and not necessarily for the better. It may be that CBD is competing with some of the proteins that metabolize THC, thus prolonging its effects. CBD may also directly inhibit those enzymes. But whatever the case, I think we can safely say the myth that CBD makes the effects of THC more mild or more tolerable is busted.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
I visited a legal cannabis dispensary in Massachusetts a few years ago, mostly to see what the hype was about. There I was, knowing basically nothing about pot, as the gentle stoner behind the counter explained to me the differences between the various strains. Acapulco Gold is buoyant and energizing; Purple Kush is sleepy, relaxed, dissociative. Here’s a strain that makes you feel nostalgic; here’s one that helps you focus. It was as complicated and as oddly specific as a fancy wine tasting – and, I had a feeling, about as reliable.
It’s a plant, after all, and though delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical responsible for its euphoric effects, it is far from the only substance in there.
The second most important compound in cannabis is cannabidiol, and most people will tell you that CBD is the gentle yin to THC’s paranoiac yang. Hence your local ganja barista reminding you that, if you don›t want all those anxiety-inducing side effects of THC, grab a strain with a nice CBD balance.
But is it true? A new study appearing in JAMA Network Open suggests, in fact, that it’s quite the opposite. This study is from Austin Zamarripa and colleagues, who clearly sit at the researcher cool kids table.
Eighteen adults who had abstained from marijuana use for at least a month participated in this trial (which is way more fun than anything we do in my lab at Yale). In random order, separated by at least a week, they ate some special brownies.
Condition one was a control brownie, condition two was a brownie containing 20 mg of THC, and condition three was a brownie containing 20 mg of THC and 640 mg of CBD. Participants were assigned each condition in random order, separated by at least a week.
A side note on doses for those of you who, like me, are not totally weed literate. A dose of 20 mg of THC is about a third of what you might find in a typical joint these days (though it’s about double the THC content of a joint in the ‘70s – I believe the technical term is “doobie”). And 640 mg of CBD is a decent dose, as 5 mg per kilogram is what some folks start with to achieve therapeutic effects.
Both THC and CBD interact with the cytochrome p450 system in the liver. This matters when you’re ingesting them instead of smoking them because you have first-pass metabolism to contend with. And, because of that p450 inhibition, it’s possible that CBD might actually increase the amount of THC that gets into your bloodstream from the brownie, or gummy, or pizza sauce, or whatever.
Let’s get to the results, starting with blood THC concentration. It’s not subtle. With CBD on board the THC concentration rises higher faster, with roughly double the area under the curve.
And, unsurprisingly, the subjective experience correlated with those higher levels. Individuals rated the “drug effect” higher with the combo. But, interestingly, the “pleasant” drug effect didn’t change much, while the unpleasant effects were substantially higher. No mitigation of THC anxiety here – quite the opposite. CBD made the anxiety worse.
Cognitive effects were equally profound. Scores on a digit symbol substitution test and a paced serial addition task were all substantially worse when CBD was mixed with THC.
And for those of you who want some more objective measures, check out the heart rate. Despite the purported “calming” nature of CBD, heart rates were way higher when individuals were exposed to both chemicals.
The picture here is quite clear, though the mechanism is not. At least when talking edibles, CBD enhances the effects of THC, and not necessarily for the better. It may be that CBD is competing with some of the proteins that metabolize THC, thus prolonging its effects. CBD may also directly inhibit those enzymes. But whatever the case, I think we can safely say the myth that CBD makes the effects of THC more mild or more tolerable is busted.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
I visited a legal cannabis dispensary in Massachusetts a few years ago, mostly to see what the hype was about. There I was, knowing basically nothing about pot, as the gentle stoner behind the counter explained to me the differences between the various strains. Acapulco Gold is buoyant and energizing; Purple Kush is sleepy, relaxed, dissociative. Here’s a strain that makes you feel nostalgic; here’s one that helps you focus. It was as complicated and as oddly specific as a fancy wine tasting – and, I had a feeling, about as reliable.
It’s a plant, after all, and though delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical responsible for its euphoric effects, it is far from the only substance in there.
The second most important compound in cannabis is cannabidiol, and most people will tell you that CBD is the gentle yin to THC’s paranoiac yang. Hence your local ganja barista reminding you that, if you don›t want all those anxiety-inducing side effects of THC, grab a strain with a nice CBD balance.
But is it true? A new study appearing in JAMA Network Open suggests, in fact, that it’s quite the opposite. This study is from Austin Zamarripa and colleagues, who clearly sit at the researcher cool kids table.
Eighteen adults who had abstained from marijuana use for at least a month participated in this trial (which is way more fun than anything we do in my lab at Yale). In random order, separated by at least a week, they ate some special brownies.
Condition one was a control brownie, condition two was a brownie containing 20 mg of THC, and condition three was a brownie containing 20 mg of THC and 640 mg of CBD. Participants were assigned each condition in random order, separated by at least a week.
A side note on doses for those of you who, like me, are not totally weed literate. A dose of 20 mg of THC is about a third of what you might find in a typical joint these days (though it’s about double the THC content of a joint in the ‘70s – I believe the technical term is “doobie”). And 640 mg of CBD is a decent dose, as 5 mg per kilogram is what some folks start with to achieve therapeutic effects.
Both THC and CBD interact with the cytochrome p450 system in the liver. This matters when you’re ingesting them instead of smoking them because you have first-pass metabolism to contend with. And, because of that p450 inhibition, it’s possible that CBD might actually increase the amount of THC that gets into your bloodstream from the brownie, or gummy, or pizza sauce, or whatever.
Let’s get to the results, starting with blood THC concentration. It’s not subtle. With CBD on board the THC concentration rises higher faster, with roughly double the area under the curve.
And, unsurprisingly, the subjective experience correlated with those higher levels. Individuals rated the “drug effect” higher with the combo. But, interestingly, the “pleasant” drug effect didn’t change much, while the unpleasant effects were substantially higher. No mitigation of THC anxiety here – quite the opposite. CBD made the anxiety worse.
Cognitive effects were equally profound. Scores on a digit symbol substitution test and a paced serial addition task were all substantially worse when CBD was mixed with THC.
And for those of you who want some more objective measures, check out the heart rate. Despite the purported “calming” nature of CBD, heart rates were way higher when individuals were exposed to both chemicals.
The picture here is quite clear, though the mechanism is not. At least when talking edibles, CBD enhances the effects of THC, and not necessarily for the better. It may be that CBD is competing with some of the proteins that metabolize THC, thus prolonging its effects. CBD may also directly inhibit those enzymes. But whatever the case, I think we can safely say the myth that CBD makes the effects of THC more mild or more tolerable is busted.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New challenge for docs: End of COVID federal public health emergency
The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.
A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.
The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.
The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.
Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.
The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”
The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
Patients’ questions
Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).
“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”
Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.
For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.
“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.
States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.
The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.
In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients
The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.
After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.
But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).
People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.
“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
Future FDA actions
Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.
But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.
The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.
The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.
The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.
“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.
Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.
“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.
A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.
The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.
The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.
Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.
The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”
The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
Patients’ questions
Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).
“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”
Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.
For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.
“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.
States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.
The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.
In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients
The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.
After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.
But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).
People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.
“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
Future FDA actions
Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.
But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.
The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.
The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.
The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.
“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.
Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.
“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.
A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.
The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.
The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.
Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.
The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”
The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
Patients’ questions
Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).
“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”
Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.
For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.
“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.
States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.
The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.
In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients
The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.
After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.
But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).
People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.
“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
Future FDA actions
Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.
But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.
The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.
The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.
The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.
“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.
Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.
“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors are disappearing from emergency departments as hospitals look to cut costs
She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.
In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.
“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.
The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.
This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.
“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.
In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”
Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.
A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.
Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.
The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.
Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.
“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”
Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.
But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.
“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”
Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.
Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.
Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.
These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.
“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”
Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”
The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.
Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.
Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.
“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”
Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.
It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”
Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.
The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.
There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.
Private equity can make millions in the gap.
For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.
Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.
American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.
In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.
“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.
The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.
This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.
“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.
In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”
Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.
A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.
Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.
The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.
Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.
“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”
Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.
But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.
“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”
Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.
Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.
Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.
These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.
“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”
Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”
The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.
Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.
Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.
“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”
Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.
It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”
Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.
The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.
There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.
Private equity can make millions in the gap.
For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.
Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.
American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.
In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.
“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.
The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.
This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.
“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.
In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”
Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.
A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.
Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.
The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.
Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.
“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”
Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.
But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.
“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”
Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.
Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.
Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.
These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.
“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”
Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”
The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.
Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.
Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.
“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”
Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.
It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”
Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.
The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.
There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.
Private equity can make millions in the gap.
For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.
Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.
American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
New report says suicide rates rising among young Black people
Significant increases in suicide occurred among Native American, Black and Hispanic people, with a startling rise among young Black people. Meanwhile, the rate of suicide among older people declined between 2018 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.
In 2021, 48,183 people died by suicide in the United States, which equates to a suicide rate of 14.1 per 100,000 people. That level equals the 2018 suicide rate, which had seen a peak that was followed by declines associated with the pandemic.
Experts said rebounding suicide rates are common following times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide declines have also occurred during times of war and natural disaster, when psychological resilience tends to increase and people work together to overcome shared adversity.
“That will wane, and then you will see rebounding in suicide rates. That is, in fact, what we feared would happen. And it has happened, at least in 2021,” Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told the New York Times.
The new CDC report found that the largest increase was among Black people aged 10-24 years, who experienced a 36.6% increase in suicide rate between 2018 and 2021. While Black people experience mental illness at the same rates as that of the general population, historically they have disproportionately limited access to mental health care, according to the American Psychiatric Association.
CDC report authors noted that some of the biggest increases in suicide rates occurred among groups most affected by the pandemic.
From 2018 to 2021, the suicide rate for people aged 25-44 increased among Native Americans by 33.7% and among Black people by 22.9%. Suicide increased among multiracial people by 20.6% and among Hispanic or Latinx people by 19.4%. Among White people of all ages, the suicide rate declined or remained steady.
“As the nation continues to respond to the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining vigilant in prevention efforts is critical, especially among disproportionately affected populations where longer-term impacts might compound preexisting inequities in suicide risk,” the CDC researchers wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Significant increases in suicide occurred among Native American, Black and Hispanic people, with a startling rise among young Black people. Meanwhile, the rate of suicide among older people declined between 2018 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.
In 2021, 48,183 people died by suicide in the United States, which equates to a suicide rate of 14.1 per 100,000 people. That level equals the 2018 suicide rate, which had seen a peak that was followed by declines associated with the pandemic.
Experts said rebounding suicide rates are common following times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide declines have also occurred during times of war and natural disaster, when psychological resilience tends to increase and people work together to overcome shared adversity.
“That will wane, and then you will see rebounding in suicide rates. That is, in fact, what we feared would happen. And it has happened, at least in 2021,” Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told the New York Times.
The new CDC report found that the largest increase was among Black people aged 10-24 years, who experienced a 36.6% increase in suicide rate between 2018 and 2021. While Black people experience mental illness at the same rates as that of the general population, historically they have disproportionately limited access to mental health care, according to the American Psychiatric Association.
CDC report authors noted that some of the biggest increases in suicide rates occurred among groups most affected by the pandemic.
From 2018 to 2021, the suicide rate for people aged 25-44 increased among Native Americans by 33.7% and among Black people by 22.9%. Suicide increased among multiracial people by 20.6% and among Hispanic or Latinx people by 19.4%. Among White people of all ages, the suicide rate declined or remained steady.
“As the nation continues to respond to the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining vigilant in prevention efforts is critical, especially among disproportionately affected populations where longer-term impacts might compound preexisting inequities in suicide risk,” the CDC researchers wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Significant increases in suicide occurred among Native American, Black and Hispanic people, with a startling rise among young Black people. Meanwhile, the rate of suicide among older people declined between 2018 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.
In 2021, 48,183 people died by suicide in the United States, which equates to a suicide rate of 14.1 per 100,000 people. That level equals the 2018 suicide rate, which had seen a peak that was followed by declines associated with the pandemic.
Experts said rebounding suicide rates are common following times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide declines have also occurred during times of war and natural disaster, when psychological resilience tends to increase and people work together to overcome shared adversity.
“That will wane, and then you will see rebounding in suicide rates. That is, in fact, what we feared would happen. And it has happened, at least in 2021,” Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told the New York Times.
The new CDC report found that the largest increase was among Black people aged 10-24 years, who experienced a 36.6% increase in suicide rate between 2018 and 2021. While Black people experience mental illness at the same rates as that of the general population, historically they have disproportionately limited access to mental health care, according to the American Psychiatric Association.
CDC report authors noted that some of the biggest increases in suicide rates occurred among groups most affected by the pandemic.
From 2018 to 2021, the suicide rate for people aged 25-44 increased among Native Americans by 33.7% and among Black people by 22.9%. Suicide increased among multiracial people by 20.6% and among Hispanic or Latinx people by 19.4%. Among White people of all ages, the suicide rate declined or remained steady.
“As the nation continues to respond to the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining vigilant in prevention efforts is critical, especially among disproportionately affected populations where longer-term impacts might compound preexisting inequities in suicide risk,” the CDC researchers wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Forced hospitalization for mental illness not a permanent solution
I met Eleanor when I was writing a book on involuntary psychiatric treatment. She was very ill when she presented to an emergency department in Northern California. She was looking for help and would have signed herself in, but after waiting 8 hours with no food or medical attention, she walked out and went to another hospital.
At this point, she was agitated and distressed and began screaming uncontrollably. The physician in the second ED did not offer her the option of signing in, and she was placed on a 72-hour hold and subsequently held in the hospital for 3 weeks after a judge committed her.
Like so many issues, involuntary psychiatric care is highly polarized. Some groups favor legislation to make involuntary treatment easier, while patient advocacy and civil rights groups vehemently oppose such legislation.
We don’t hear from these combatants as much as we hear from those who trumpet their views on abortion or gun control, yet this battlefield exists. It is not surprising that when New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a plan to hospitalize homeless people with mental illnesses – involuntarily if necessary, and at the discretion of the police – people were outraged.
New York City is not the only place using this strategy to address the problem of mental illness and homelessness; California has enacted similar legislation, and every major city has homeless citizens.
Eleanor was not homeless, and fortunately, she recovered and returned to her family. However, she remained distressed and traumatized by her hospitalization for years. “It sticks with you,” she told me. “I would rather die than go in again.”
I wish I could tell you that Eleanor is unique in saying that she would rather die than go to a hospital unit for treatment, but it is not an uncommon sentiment for patients. Some people who are charged with crimes and end up in the judicial system will opt to go to jail rather than to a psychiatric hospital. It is also not easy to access outpatient psychiatric treatment.
Barriers to care
Many psychiatrists don’t participate with insurance networks, and publicly funded clinics may have long waiting lists, so illnesses escalate until there is a crisis and hospitalization is necessary. For many, stigma and fear of potential professional repercussions are significant barriers to care.
What are the issues that legislation attempts to address? The first is the standard for hospitalizing individuals against their will. In some states, the patient must be dangerous, while in others there is a lower standard of “gravely disabled,” and finally there are those that promote a standard of a “need for treatment.”
The second is related to medicating people against their will, a process that can be rightly perceived as an assault if the patient refuses to take oral medications and must be held down for injections. Next, the use of outpatient civil commitment – legally requiring people to get treatment if they are not in the hospital – has been increasingly invoked as a way to prevent mass murders and random violence against strangers.
All but four states have some legislation for outpatient commitment, euphemistically called Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), yet these laws are difficult to enforce and expensive to enact. They are also not fully effective.
In New York City, Kendra’s Law has not eliminated subway violence by people with psychiatric disturbances, and the shooter who killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Virginia Tech in 2007 had previously been ordered by a judge to go to outpatient treatment, but he simply never showed up for his appointment.
Finally, the battle includes the right of patients to refuse to have their psychiatric information released to their caretakers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 – a measure that many families believe would help them to get loved ones to take medications and go to appointments.
The concern about how to negotiate the needs of society and the civil rights of people with psychiatric disorders has been with us for centuries. There is a strong antipsychiatry movement that asserts that psychotropic medications are ineffective or harmful and refers to patients as “psychiatric survivors.” We value the right to medical autonomy, and when there is controversy over the validity of a treatment, there is even more controversy over forcing it upon people.
Psychiatric medications are very effective and benefit many people, but they don’t help everyone, and some people experience side effects. Also, we can’t deny that involuntary care can go wrong; the conservatorship of Britney Spears for 13 years is a very public example.
Multiple stakeholders
Many have a stake in how this plays out. There are the patients, who may be suffering and unable to recognize that they are ill, who may have valid reasons for not wanting the treatments, and who ideally should have the right to refuse care.
There are the families who watch their loved ones suffer, deteriorate, and miss the opportunities that life has to offer; who do not want their children to be homeless or incarcerated; and who may be at risk from violent behavior.
There are the mental health professionals who want to do what’s in the best interest of their patients while following legal and ethical mandates, who worry about being sued for tragic outcomes, and who can’t meet the current demand for services.
There is the taxpayer who foots the bill for disability payments, lost productivity, and institutionalization. There is our society that worries that people with psychiatric disorders will commit random acts of violence.
Finally, there are the insurers, who want to pay for as little care as possible and throw up constant hurdles in the treatment process. We must acknowledge that resources used for involuntary treatment are diverted away from those who want care.
Eleanor had many advantages that unhoused people don’t have: a supportive family, health insurance, and the financial means to pay a psychiatrist who respected her wishes to wean off her medications. She returned to a comfortable home and to personal and occupational success.
It is tragic that we have people living on the streets because of a psychiatric disorder, addiction, poverty, or some combination of these. No one should be unhoused. If the rationale of hospitalization is to decrease violence, I am not hopeful. The Epidemiologic Catchment Area study shows that people with psychiatric disorders are responsible for only 4% of all violence.
The logistics of determining which people living on the streets have psychiatric disorders, transporting them safely to medical facilities, and then finding the resources to provide for compassionate and thoughtful care in meaningful and sustained ways are very challenging.
If we don’t want people living on the streets, we need to create supports, including infrastructure to facilitate housing, access to mental health care, and addiction treatment before we resort to involuntary hospitalization.
Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I met Eleanor when I was writing a book on involuntary psychiatric treatment. She was very ill when she presented to an emergency department in Northern California. She was looking for help and would have signed herself in, but after waiting 8 hours with no food or medical attention, she walked out and went to another hospital.
At this point, she was agitated and distressed and began screaming uncontrollably. The physician in the second ED did not offer her the option of signing in, and she was placed on a 72-hour hold and subsequently held in the hospital for 3 weeks after a judge committed her.
Like so many issues, involuntary psychiatric care is highly polarized. Some groups favor legislation to make involuntary treatment easier, while patient advocacy and civil rights groups vehemently oppose such legislation.
We don’t hear from these combatants as much as we hear from those who trumpet their views on abortion or gun control, yet this battlefield exists. It is not surprising that when New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a plan to hospitalize homeless people with mental illnesses – involuntarily if necessary, and at the discretion of the police – people were outraged.
New York City is not the only place using this strategy to address the problem of mental illness and homelessness; California has enacted similar legislation, and every major city has homeless citizens.
Eleanor was not homeless, and fortunately, she recovered and returned to her family. However, she remained distressed and traumatized by her hospitalization for years. “It sticks with you,” she told me. “I would rather die than go in again.”
I wish I could tell you that Eleanor is unique in saying that she would rather die than go to a hospital unit for treatment, but it is not an uncommon sentiment for patients. Some people who are charged with crimes and end up in the judicial system will opt to go to jail rather than to a psychiatric hospital. It is also not easy to access outpatient psychiatric treatment.
Barriers to care
Many psychiatrists don’t participate with insurance networks, and publicly funded clinics may have long waiting lists, so illnesses escalate until there is a crisis and hospitalization is necessary. For many, stigma and fear of potential professional repercussions are significant barriers to care.
What are the issues that legislation attempts to address? The first is the standard for hospitalizing individuals against their will. In some states, the patient must be dangerous, while in others there is a lower standard of “gravely disabled,” and finally there are those that promote a standard of a “need for treatment.”
The second is related to medicating people against their will, a process that can be rightly perceived as an assault if the patient refuses to take oral medications and must be held down for injections. Next, the use of outpatient civil commitment – legally requiring people to get treatment if they are not in the hospital – has been increasingly invoked as a way to prevent mass murders and random violence against strangers.
All but four states have some legislation for outpatient commitment, euphemistically called Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), yet these laws are difficult to enforce and expensive to enact. They are also not fully effective.
In New York City, Kendra’s Law has not eliminated subway violence by people with psychiatric disturbances, and the shooter who killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Virginia Tech in 2007 had previously been ordered by a judge to go to outpatient treatment, but he simply never showed up for his appointment.
Finally, the battle includes the right of patients to refuse to have their psychiatric information released to their caretakers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 – a measure that many families believe would help them to get loved ones to take medications and go to appointments.
The concern about how to negotiate the needs of society and the civil rights of people with psychiatric disorders has been with us for centuries. There is a strong antipsychiatry movement that asserts that psychotropic medications are ineffective or harmful and refers to patients as “psychiatric survivors.” We value the right to medical autonomy, and when there is controversy over the validity of a treatment, there is even more controversy over forcing it upon people.
Psychiatric medications are very effective and benefit many people, but they don’t help everyone, and some people experience side effects. Also, we can’t deny that involuntary care can go wrong; the conservatorship of Britney Spears for 13 years is a very public example.
Multiple stakeholders
Many have a stake in how this plays out. There are the patients, who may be suffering and unable to recognize that they are ill, who may have valid reasons for not wanting the treatments, and who ideally should have the right to refuse care.
There are the families who watch their loved ones suffer, deteriorate, and miss the opportunities that life has to offer; who do not want their children to be homeless or incarcerated; and who may be at risk from violent behavior.
There are the mental health professionals who want to do what’s in the best interest of their patients while following legal and ethical mandates, who worry about being sued for tragic outcomes, and who can’t meet the current demand for services.
There is the taxpayer who foots the bill for disability payments, lost productivity, and institutionalization. There is our society that worries that people with psychiatric disorders will commit random acts of violence.
Finally, there are the insurers, who want to pay for as little care as possible and throw up constant hurdles in the treatment process. We must acknowledge that resources used for involuntary treatment are diverted away from those who want care.
Eleanor had many advantages that unhoused people don’t have: a supportive family, health insurance, and the financial means to pay a psychiatrist who respected her wishes to wean off her medications. She returned to a comfortable home and to personal and occupational success.
It is tragic that we have people living on the streets because of a psychiatric disorder, addiction, poverty, or some combination of these. No one should be unhoused. If the rationale of hospitalization is to decrease violence, I am not hopeful. The Epidemiologic Catchment Area study shows that people with psychiatric disorders are responsible for only 4% of all violence.
The logistics of determining which people living on the streets have psychiatric disorders, transporting them safely to medical facilities, and then finding the resources to provide for compassionate and thoughtful care in meaningful and sustained ways are very challenging.
If we don’t want people living on the streets, we need to create supports, including infrastructure to facilitate housing, access to mental health care, and addiction treatment before we resort to involuntary hospitalization.
Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I met Eleanor when I was writing a book on involuntary psychiatric treatment. She was very ill when she presented to an emergency department in Northern California. She was looking for help and would have signed herself in, but after waiting 8 hours with no food or medical attention, she walked out and went to another hospital.
At this point, she was agitated and distressed and began screaming uncontrollably. The physician in the second ED did not offer her the option of signing in, and she was placed on a 72-hour hold and subsequently held in the hospital for 3 weeks after a judge committed her.
Like so many issues, involuntary psychiatric care is highly polarized. Some groups favor legislation to make involuntary treatment easier, while patient advocacy and civil rights groups vehemently oppose such legislation.
We don’t hear from these combatants as much as we hear from those who trumpet their views on abortion or gun control, yet this battlefield exists. It is not surprising that when New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a plan to hospitalize homeless people with mental illnesses – involuntarily if necessary, and at the discretion of the police – people were outraged.
New York City is not the only place using this strategy to address the problem of mental illness and homelessness; California has enacted similar legislation, and every major city has homeless citizens.
Eleanor was not homeless, and fortunately, she recovered and returned to her family. However, she remained distressed and traumatized by her hospitalization for years. “It sticks with you,” she told me. “I would rather die than go in again.”
I wish I could tell you that Eleanor is unique in saying that she would rather die than go to a hospital unit for treatment, but it is not an uncommon sentiment for patients. Some people who are charged with crimes and end up in the judicial system will opt to go to jail rather than to a psychiatric hospital. It is also not easy to access outpatient psychiatric treatment.
Barriers to care
Many psychiatrists don’t participate with insurance networks, and publicly funded clinics may have long waiting lists, so illnesses escalate until there is a crisis and hospitalization is necessary. For many, stigma and fear of potential professional repercussions are significant barriers to care.
What are the issues that legislation attempts to address? The first is the standard for hospitalizing individuals against their will. In some states, the patient must be dangerous, while in others there is a lower standard of “gravely disabled,” and finally there are those that promote a standard of a “need for treatment.”
The second is related to medicating people against their will, a process that can be rightly perceived as an assault if the patient refuses to take oral medications and must be held down for injections. Next, the use of outpatient civil commitment – legally requiring people to get treatment if they are not in the hospital – has been increasingly invoked as a way to prevent mass murders and random violence against strangers.
All but four states have some legislation for outpatient commitment, euphemistically called Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), yet these laws are difficult to enforce and expensive to enact. They are also not fully effective.
In New York City, Kendra’s Law has not eliminated subway violence by people with psychiatric disturbances, and the shooter who killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Virginia Tech in 2007 had previously been ordered by a judge to go to outpatient treatment, but he simply never showed up for his appointment.
Finally, the battle includes the right of patients to refuse to have their psychiatric information released to their caretakers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 – a measure that many families believe would help them to get loved ones to take medications and go to appointments.
The concern about how to negotiate the needs of society and the civil rights of people with psychiatric disorders has been with us for centuries. There is a strong antipsychiatry movement that asserts that psychotropic medications are ineffective or harmful and refers to patients as “psychiatric survivors.” We value the right to medical autonomy, and when there is controversy over the validity of a treatment, there is even more controversy over forcing it upon people.
Psychiatric medications are very effective and benefit many people, but they don’t help everyone, and some people experience side effects. Also, we can’t deny that involuntary care can go wrong; the conservatorship of Britney Spears for 13 years is a very public example.
Multiple stakeholders
Many have a stake in how this plays out. There are the patients, who may be suffering and unable to recognize that they are ill, who may have valid reasons for not wanting the treatments, and who ideally should have the right to refuse care.
There are the families who watch their loved ones suffer, deteriorate, and miss the opportunities that life has to offer; who do not want their children to be homeless or incarcerated; and who may be at risk from violent behavior.
There are the mental health professionals who want to do what’s in the best interest of their patients while following legal and ethical mandates, who worry about being sued for tragic outcomes, and who can’t meet the current demand for services.
There is the taxpayer who foots the bill for disability payments, lost productivity, and institutionalization. There is our society that worries that people with psychiatric disorders will commit random acts of violence.
Finally, there are the insurers, who want to pay for as little care as possible and throw up constant hurdles in the treatment process. We must acknowledge that resources used for involuntary treatment are diverted away from those who want care.
Eleanor had many advantages that unhoused people don’t have: a supportive family, health insurance, and the financial means to pay a psychiatrist who respected her wishes to wean off her medications. She returned to a comfortable home and to personal and occupational success.
It is tragic that we have people living on the streets because of a psychiatric disorder, addiction, poverty, or some combination of these. No one should be unhoused. If the rationale of hospitalization is to decrease violence, I am not hopeful. The Epidemiologic Catchment Area study shows that people with psychiatric disorders are responsible for only 4% of all violence.
The logistics of determining which people living on the streets have psychiatric disorders, transporting them safely to medical facilities, and then finding the resources to provide for compassionate and thoughtful care in meaningful and sustained ways are very challenging.
If we don’t want people living on the streets, we need to create supports, including infrastructure to facilitate housing, access to mental health care, and addiction treatment before we resort to involuntary hospitalization.
Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Notalgia paresthetica: Difelikefalin helps upper-back itch, but with side effects
from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.
However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.
Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
Drug reduced moderate to severe itch
Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.
However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.
Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”
Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.
The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.
The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).
Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”
In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”
“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.
Side effects ‘worrisome’
The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.
Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.
“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.
In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”
He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”
The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.
Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.
However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.
Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
Drug reduced moderate to severe itch
Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.
However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.
Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”
Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.
The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.
The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).
Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”
In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”
“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.
Side effects ‘worrisome’
The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.
Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.
“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.
In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”
He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”
The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.
Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.
However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.
Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
Drug reduced moderate to severe itch
Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.
However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.
Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”
Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.
The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.
The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).
Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”
In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”
“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.
Side effects ‘worrisome’
The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.
Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.
“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.
In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”
He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”
The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.
Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Vibrating pill can help treat constipation
The drug-free solution is designed for daily use. In a trial, the pill produced at least one additional weekly bowel movement for 41% of participants, compared with at least one additional bowel movement for 23% of participants who took a placebo pill.
Vibrant was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in August but is just now becoming available for doctors to prescribe, the company announced Wednesday.
Because it is not a drug, Vibrant is considered a class 2 medical device by the FDA, which is the same class as contact lenses.
Here’s how it works: Around bedtime, the pill is inserted in a pod to activate it, then swallowed. It travels the digestive tract and reaches the large intestine about 14 hours later.
“Then it goes to work,” the company explained in a news release. “After it’s swallowed, it is active for about 2 hours, goes quiet for around 6, hours and then activates again for another 2 hours.”
“There are little vibrations for 3 seconds on, 3 seconds off,” said Cathy Collis, chief commercial officer for Israel-based Vibrant Gastro, in a statement.
The vibrations help trigger peristalsis, the wave-like muscle contractions that move food through the gastrointestinal tract, the company said. Decreased peristalsis is a cause of constipation, which is defined as having less than three bowel movements per week, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
About 2.5 million people see their doctor each year for constipation. The pills are made of what the company called “medical-grade material” that is the same as what’s used to make gastroenterology cameras.
In the trial, most people did not report feeling the pill inside of them.
“A minority could feel it,” said Eamonn Quigley, MD, chief of gastroenterology at Houston Methodist Hospital, in a statement. “None of them felt it was being uncomfortable. And none of them stopped taking it because of that.”
Dr. Quigley helped test the capsules and does not have a financial stake in the company, according to Vibrant.
The pills do not dissolve inside a person’s body. Rather, “after they’ve done their job, the person’s body poops them out, and they’re flushed away,” the company said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The drug-free solution is designed for daily use. In a trial, the pill produced at least one additional weekly bowel movement for 41% of participants, compared with at least one additional bowel movement for 23% of participants who took a placebo pill.
Vibrant was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in August but is just now becoming available for doctors to prescribe, the company announced Wednesday.
Because it is not a drug, Vibrant is considered a class 2 medical device by the FDA, which is the same class as contact lenses.
Here’s how it works: Around bedtime, the pill is inserted in a pod to activate it, then swallowed. It travels the digestive tract and reaches the large intestine about 14 hours later.
“Then it goes to work,” the company explained in a news release. “After it’s swallowed, it is active for about 2 hours, goes quiet for around 6, hours and then activates again for another 2 hours.”
“There are little vibrations for 3 seconds on, 3 seconds off,” said Cathy Collis, chief commercial officer for Israel-based Vibrant Gastro, in a statement.
The vibrations help trigger peristalsis, the wave-like muscle contractions that move food through the gastrointestinal tract, the company said. Decreased peristalsis is a cause of constipation, which is defined as having less than three bowel movements per week, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
About 2.5 million people see their doctor each year for constipation. The pills are made of what the company called “medical-grade material” that is the same as what’s used to make gastroenterology cameras.
In the trial, most people did not report feeling the pill inside of them.
“A minority could feel it,” said Eamonn Quigley, MD, chief of gastroenterology at Houston Methodist Hospital, in a statement. “None of them felt it was being uncomfortable. And none of them stopped taking it because of that.”
Dr. Quigley helped test the capsules and does not have a financial stake in the company, according to Vibrant.
The pills do not dissolve inside a person’s body. Rather, “after they’ve done their job, the person’s body poops them out, and they’re flushed away,” the company said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The drug-free solution is designed for daily use. In a trial, the pill produced at least one additional weekly bowel movement for 41% of participants, compared with at least one additional bowel movement for 23% of participants who took a placebo pill.
Vibrant was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in August but is just now becoming available for doctors to prescribe, the company announced Wednesday.
Because it is not a drug, Vibrant is considered a class 2 medical device by the FDA, which is the same class as contact lenses.
Here’s how it works: Around bedtime, the pill is inserted in a pod to activate it, then swallowed. It travels the digestive tract and reaches the large intestine about 14 hours later.
“Then it goes to work,” the company explained in a news release. “After it’s swallowed, it is active for about 2 hours, goes quiet for around 6, hours and then activates again for another 2 hours.”
“There are little vibrations for 3 seconds on, 3 seconds off,” said Cathy Collis, chief commercial officer for Israel-based Vibrant Gastro, in a statement.
The vibrations help trigger peristalsis, the wave-like muscle contractions that move food through the gastrointestinal tract, the company said. Decreased peristalsis is a cause of constipation, which is defined as having less than three bowel movements per week, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
About 2.5 million people see their doctor each year for constipation. The pills are made of what the company called “medical-grade material” that is the same as what’s used to make gastroenterology cameras.
In the trial, most people did not report feeling the pill inside of them.
“A minority could feel it,” said Eamonn Quigley, MD, chief of gastroenterology at Houston Methodist Hospital, in a statement. “None of them felt it was being uncomfortable. And none of them stopped taking it because of that.”
Dr. Quigley helped test the capsules and does not have a financial stake in the company, according to Vibrant.
The pills do not dissolve inside a person’s body. Rather, “after they’ve done their job, the person’s body poops them out, and they’re flushed away,” the company said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.