Amanda Schmidt

The first day of seeing patients without a mask was, for Sterling Ransone Jr., MD, “unsettling.” 

“I can’t tell you how weird it was the first day that I walked down the hall from my office to where my exam rooms are, to not have a mask on after 3 years of the habit,” said Dr. Ransone, a family physician in Deltaville, Va., and board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians. 

The White House recently lifted the public health emergency order that overhauled the way health care providers operated and advised patients over the past 3 years. The new postpandemic era will require clinicians and staff to once again adjust. 

For Dr. Ransone, this transition entails getting used to his bare face, reminding patients of the latest and varying symptoms of the virus, and parting ways with sick patients if they refuse to wear a mask.

As states, hospitals, and health care systems around the country relax their mask mandates for care providers, clinicians will have to fall back on their own policies that patients with potential symptoms mask up. 

“Now that it’s up to our offices, we have to have a little bit more backbone,” Dr. Ransone said. “If they’re not willing to follow a health-related policy that will protect the vulnerable, we will not see them. And so for us, it’s been pretty straightforward.”

Despite the policy, Dr. Ransone has cared for patients who don’t disclose they are feeling sick until he enters the room. 

“And I wasn’t masked,” Dr. Ransone said. So, “I will wear masks for the rest of the day just to try to protect the rest of my patients in case I was exposed.”

Masks are optional for both patients and staff at the University of Maryland Medical System, but Niharika Khanna, MD, MBBS, said she still wears one with her patients, and her office advises staff to do the same. If patients are experiencing respiratory symptoms, like a cough, they are asked to wear one. 

“When the patient first walks up to you, you have no idea what they have,” Dr. Khanna said. 

Dr. Khanna is especially mindful of immunocompromised patients who have cancer, and Dr. Ransone cares for several patients who have received kidney transplants and are on potent immunosuppressive drugs. 

“I know they’re appreciating our efforts to protect them, and I think the other patients are realizing that it’s a wise thing to do,” Dr. Ransone said. 

Some patients have anxiety about the end of masking in doctor offices, but others have been excited about interacting more with their care teams, according to William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society. Many clinicians will advise their most immunocompromised patients the same as they did prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“There’s always been guidelines that oncologists have given to patients who are immunocompromised – we always told them to avoid crowded places, crowded scenes, be outside more than inside,” Dr. Dahut said. “Those general recommendations will continue.”

The AAFP supports masking to limit COVID’s spread, but the “most important thing people can do is to get vaccinated,” Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, president of the AAFP, said.

But the accessibility of vaccinations is also shifting.
 

Testing shifts

The government will continue to provide free COVID-19 vaccines because it still has supplies on hand. When this stock runs out, commercial insurance providers will be required to cover the immunizations, as they are considered preventive, but people without insurance will have to pay out of pocket. 

The AAFP is pushing the Biden administration and Congress to keep the purchase price of those vaccines low enough that clinicians can keep them in stock, according to Dr. Iroku-Malize. Once the federal government transitions COVID-19 vaccines to the commercial market – as early as later in 2023 – it may pose some challenges for providers. 

“If the price of the vaccines is too high, physician practices may struggle to make the upfront investment in COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “Patients often prefer to receive vaccine counseling and administration from their usual source of primary care, like their family physician.” 

The federal government has also said it still has a supply of treatments for the public to access for free, but has not revealed how much it has on hand or given a timeline for the transition to the private market. 

COVID-19 tests, meanwhile, are no longer covered because of the end of the public health emergency, and cost about $45 per kit on average, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Pediatrician Lisa Costello, MD, MPH, knows that price point will be a challenge for some families she cares for at West Virginia University Medicine Children’s Hospital in Morgantown. Many still ask her where they can access free tests. 

“Testing if you’re a higher risk person is something we need to ensure that people continue to be educated about,” Dr. Costello said. 

She’s hopeful that COVID-19 vaccines and treatments such as Paxlovid will stay free in the coming months so patients can continue to easily access them.
 

Future of telehealth

Relaxed regulations of prescribing controlled substances via telehealth and across state lines allowed clinicians to treat patients near and far during the pandemic. But many providers were worried about a proposal from the Drug Enforcement Administration to clamp down on the prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth, according to A. Mark Fendrick, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“We were all panicking about what was going to happen to what is for many clinicians a very valuable policy,” Dr. Fendrick said of the telehealth flexibilities introduced during COVID-19. 

The DEA, after getting 38,000 comments on their proposed regulations, pulled back on that plan, delaying the cliff until November. 

Dr. Fendrick said that telehealth has allowed clinicians to reach patients who have historically faced barriers to care, such as lacking transportation. 

“The benefits of that outweigh the potential harms,” he said. “Every policy you make that tightens access because you want to decrease the untoward and unfortunate outcomes will also decrease access to clinical indications.”

The AAFP said it hopes for clear guidance from the DEA in the coming months on what the new telehealth landscape for prescribing will look like.
 

Medicaid changes

About half of the patients who see Dr. Khanna have insurance through Medicaid. 

During the public health emergency, states were not allowed to remove anyone from Medicaid, regardless of whether they no longer qualified for the program or not. But a law passed by Congress last year requires states to once again check Medicaid eligibility. As many as 15 million people could lose their Medicaid coverage. 

That could affect the treatments Dr. Khanna recommends for her patients who get kicked off because those who become uninsured or transition to private insurance will have to pay more out of pocket. Maryland will start removals in June. 

“When you have an uninsured patient versus Medicaid, it’s a huge difference in what you can ask the patient to do – the medications you can provide, the testing you can provide,” Dr. Khanna said. 

States were authorized to remove people from Medicaid as of April 1, with Arkansas, New Hampshire, and South Dakota starting right away. But many states are just now getting the review process going. About a dozen states, including Indiana, Ohio, Utah, and West Virginia, started removing people in May 2023. 

Uninsurance rates hit record lows across the United States during the pandemic. Keeping Americans on health insurance is a top priority for the AAFP, Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “We know health care coverage disruptions prevent people from seeking and accessing the care they need.”

Many people who are removed from Medicaid will be eligible for health insurance through employers, or through the Affordable Care Act’s private marketplace. But premiums and deductibles are often higher in these plans, which studies have shown result in patients delaying medical visits and not filling prescriptions or receiving treatment.
 

Staying mindful

Hospitals that receive federal funds will still have to report COVID-19 test results to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services through 2024, although private labs will no longer be obligated to do so. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will also continue to monitor virus levels in communities through wastewater. But some states will no longer collect data. 

Gone are the days when clinicians and others would watch for daily totals of case counts with the type of fervor typically reserved for live scoring updates during sports games, according to Dr. Costello.

“We just have to be mindful of the numbers that might be coming in,” Dr. Costello said.

Dr. Ransone, however, cautioned that clinicians not become complacent. In early May, Dr. Ransone saw two patients with conjunctivitis, what patients thought was simply pink eye – a symptom of the latest COVID-19 variant. Both patients told him it wasn’t possible they had COVID-19 because they didn’t have coughs. 

“I don’t want to see physician offices fall into that trap that it’s over and be a potential nidus for infection for other patients,” Dr. Ransone said. “It’s incumbent upon us to remind people of the current symptoms so that folks will know when they need to wear a mask when they’re around their grandmother.”

The move away from universal masking in the office has benefits. Many of his older patients have difficulty hearing and had used lip reading to help understand him, he said. During the pandemic, masks got in the way of that form of communication. Now they can see his mouth again and better decipher what he says.

“Being able to have that face-to-face contact, without a mask intervening, has been really beneficial for a lot of my older patients,” he said.

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

The first day of seeing patients without a mask was, for Sterling Ransone Jr., MD, “unsettling.” 

“I can’t tell you how weird it was the first day that I walked down the hall from my office to where my exam rooms are, to not have a mask on after 3 years of the habit,” said Dr. Ransone, a family physician in Deltaville, Va., and board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians. 

The White House recently lifted the public health emergency order that overhauled the way health care providers operated and advised patients over the past 3 years. The new postpandemic era will require clinicians and staff to once again adjust. 

For Dr. Ransone, this transition entails getting used to his bare face, reminding patients of the latest and varying symptoms of the virus, and parting ways with sick patients if they refuse to wear a mask.

As states, hospitals, and health care systems around the country relax their mask mandates for care providers, clinicians will have to fall back on their own policies that patients with potential symptoms mask up. 

“Now that it’s up to our offices, we have to have a little bit more backbone,” Dr. Ransone said. “If they’re not willing to follow a health-related policy that will protect the vulnerable, we will not see them. And so for us, it’s been pretty straightforward.”

Despite the policy, Dr. Ransone has cared for patients who don’t disclose they are feeling sick until he enters the room. 

“And I wasn’t masked,” Dr. Ransone said. So, “I will wear masks for the rest of the day just to try to protect the rest of my patients in case I was exposed.”

Masks are optional for both patients and staff at the University of Maryland Medical System, but Niharika Khanna, MD, MBBS, said she still wears one with her patients, and her office advises staff to do the same. If patients are experiencing respiratory symptoms, like a cough, they are asked to wear one. 

“When the patient first walks up to you, you have no idea what they have,” Dr. Khanna said. 

Dr. Khanna is especially mindful of immunocompromised patients who have cancer, and Dr. Ransone cares for several patients who have received kidney transplants and are on potent immunosuppressive drugs. 

“I know they’re appreciating our efforts to protect them, and I think the other patients are realizing that it’s a wise thing to do,” Dr. Ransone said. 

Some patients have anxiety about the end of masking in doctor offices, but others have been excited about interacting more with their care teams, according to William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society. Many clinicians will advise their most immunocompromised patients the same as they did prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“There’s always been guidelines that oncologists have given to patients who are immunocompromised – we always told them to avoid crowded places, crowded scenes, be outside more than inside,” Dr. Dahut said. “Those general recommendations will continue.”

The AAFP supports masking to limit COVID’s spread, but the “most important thing people can do is to get vaccinated,” Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, president of the AAFP, said.

But the accessibility of vaccinations is also shifting.
 

Testing shifts

The government will continue to provide free COVID-19 vaccines because it still has supplies on hand. When this stock runs out, commercial insurance providers will be required to cover the immunizations, as they are considered preventive, but people without insurance will have to pay out of pocket. 

The AAFP is pushing the Biden administration and Congress to keep the purchase price of those vaccines low enough that clinicians can keep them in stock, according to Dr. Iroku-Malize. Once the federal government transitions COVID-19 vaccines to the commercial market – as early as later in 2023 – it may pose some challenges for providers. 

“If the price of the vaccines is too high, physician practices may struggle to make the upfront investment in COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “Patients often prefer to receive vaccine counseling and administration from their usual source of primary care, like their family physician.” 

The federal government has also said it still has a supply of treatments for the public to access for free, but has not revealed how much it has on hand or given a timeline for the transition to the private market. 

COVID-19 tests, meanwhile, are no longer covered because of the end of the public health emergency, and cost about $45 per kit on average, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Pediatrician Lisa Costello, MD, MPH, knows that price point will be a challenge for some families she cares for at West Virginia University Medicine Children’s Hospital in Morgantown. Many still ask her where they can access free tests. 

“Testing if you’re a higher risk person is something we need to ensure that people continue to be educated about,” Dr. Costello said. 

She’s hopeful that COVID-19 vaccines and treatments such as Paxlovid will stay free in the coming months so patients can continue to easily access them.
 

Future of telehealth

Relaxed regulations of prescribing controlled substances via telehealth and across state lines allowed clinicians to treat patients near and far during the pandemic. But many providers were worried about a proposal from the Drug Enforcement Administration to clamp down on the prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth, according to A. Mark Fendrick, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“We were all panicking about what was going to happen to what is for many clinicians a very valuable policy,” Dr. Fendrick said of the telehealth flexibilities introduced during COVID-19. 

The DEA, after getting 38,000 comments on their proposed regulations, pulled back on that plan, delaying the cliff until November. 

Dr. Fendrick said that telehealth has allowed clinicians to reach patients who have historically faced barriers to care, such as lacking transportation. 

“The benefits of that outweigh the potential harms,” he said. “Every policy you make that tightens access because you want to decrease the untoward and unfortunate outcomes will also decrease access to clinical indications.”

The AAFP said it hopes for clear guidance from the DEA in the coming months on what the new telehealth landscape for prescribing will look like.
 

Medicaid changes

About half of the patients who see Dr. Khanna have insurance through Medicaid. 

During the public health emergency, states were not allowed to remove anyone from Medicaid, regardless of whether they no longer qualified for the program or not. But a law passed by Congress last year requires states to once again check Medicaid eligibility. As many as 15 million people could lose their Medicaid coverage. 

That could affect the treatments Dr. Khanna recommends for her patients who get kicked off because those who become uninsured or transition to private insurance will have to pay more out of pocket. Maryland will start removals in June. 

“When you have an uninsured patient versus Medicaid, it’s a huge difference in what you can ask the patient to do – the medications you can provide, the testing you can provide,” Dr. Khanna said. 

States were authorized to remove people from Medicaid as of April 1, with Arkansas, New Hampshire, and South Dakota starting right away. But many states are just now getting the review process going. About a dozen states, including Indiana, Ohio, Utah, and West Virginia, started removing people in May 2023. 

Uninsurance rates hit record lows across the United States during the pandemic. Keeping Americans on health insurance is a top priority for the AAFP, Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “We know health care coverage disruptions prevent people from seeking and accessing the care they need.”

Many people who are removed from Medicaid will be eligible for health insurance through employers, or through the Affordable Care Act’s private marketplace. But premiums and deductibles are often higher in these plans, which studies have shown result in patients delaying medical visits and not filling prescriptions or receiving treatment.
 

Staying mindful

Hospitals that receive federal funds will still have to report COVID-19 test results to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services through 2024, although private labs will no longer be obligated to do so. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will also continue to monitor virus levels in communities through wastewater. But some states will no longer collect data. 

Gone are the days when clinicians and others would watch for daily totals of case counts with the type of fervor typically reserved for live scoring updates during sports games, according to Dr. Costello.

“We just have to be mindful of the numbers that might be coming in,” Dr. Costello said.

Dr. Ransone, however, cautioned that clinicians not become complacent. In early May, Dr. Ransone saw two patients with conjunctivitis, what patients thought was simply pink eye – a symptom of the latest COVID-19 variant. Both patients told him it wasn’t possible they had COVID-19 because they didn’t have coughs. 

“I don’t want to see physician offices fall into that trap that it’s over and be a potential nidus for infection for other patients,” Dr. Ransone said. “It’s incumbent upon us to remind people of the current symptoms so that folks will know when they need to wear a mask when they’re around their grandmother.”

The move away from universal masking in the office has benefits. Many of his older patients have difficulty hearing and had used lip reading to help understand him, he said. During the pandemic, masks got in the way of that form of communication. Now they can see his mouth again and better decipher what he says.

“Being able to have that face-to-face contact, without a mask intervening, has been really beneficial for a lot of my older patients,” he said.

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

The first day of seeing patients without a mask was, for Sterling Ransone Jr., MD, “unsettling.” 

“I can’t tell you how weird it was the first day that I walked down the hall from my office to where my exam rooms are, to not have a mask on after 3 years of the habit,” said Dr. Ransone, a family physician in Deltaville, Va., and board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians. 

The White House recently lifted the public health emergency order that overhauled the way health care providers operated and advised patients over the past 3 years. The new postpandemic era will require clinicians and staff to once again adjust. 

For Dr. Ransone, this transition entails getting used to his bare face, reminding patients of the latest and varying symptoms of the virus, and parting ways with sick patients if they refuse to wear a mask.

As states, hospitals, and health care systems around the country relax their mask mandates for care providers, clinicians will have to fall back on their own policies that patients with potential symptoms mask up. 

“Now that it’s up to our offices, we have to have a little bit more backbone,” Dr. Ransone said. “If they’re not willing to follow a health-related policy that will protect the vulnerable, we will not see them. And so for us, it’s been pretty straightforward.”

Despite the policy, Dr. Ransone has cared for patients who don’t disclose they are feeling sick until he enters the room. 

“And I wasn’t masked,” Dr. Ransone said. So, “I will wear masks for the rest of the day just to try to protect the rest of my patients in case I was exposed.”

Masks are optional for both patients and staff at the University of Maryland Medical System, but Niharika Khanna, MD, MBBS, said she still wears one with her patients, and her office advises staff to do the same. If patients are experiencing respiratory symptoms, like a cough, they are asked to wear one. 

“When the patient first walks up to you, you have no idea what they have,” Dr. Khanna said. 

Dr. Khanna is especially mindful of immunocompromised patients who have cancer, and Dr. Ransone cares for several patients who have received kidney transplants and are on potent immunosuppressive drugs. 

“I know they’re appreciating our efforts to protect them, and I think the other patients are realizing that it’s a wise thing to do,” Dr. Ransone said. 

Some patients have anxiety about the end of masking in doctor offices, but others have been excited about interacting more with their care teams, according to William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society. Many clinicians will advise their most immunocompromised patients the same as they did prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“There’s always been guidelines that oncologists have given to patients who are immunocompromised – we always told them to avoid crowded places, crowded scenes, be outside more than inside,” Dr. Dahut said. “Those general recommendations will continue.”

The AAFP supports masking to limit COVID’s spread, but the “most important thing people can do is to get vaccinated,” Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, president of the AAFP, said.

But the accessibility of vaccinations is also shifting.
 

Testing shifts

The government will continue to provide free COVID-19 vaccines because it still has supplies on hand. When this stock runs out, commercial insurance providers will be required to cover the immunizations, as they are considered preventive, but people without insurance will have to pay out of pocket. 

The AAFP is pushing the Biden administration and Congress to keep the purchase price of those vaccines low enough that clinicians can keep them in stock, according to Dr. Iroku-Malize. Once the federal government transitions COVID-19 vaccines to the commercial market – as early as later in 2023 – it may pose some challenges for providers. 

“If the price of the vaccines is too high, physician practices may struggle to make the upfront investment in COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “Patients often prefer to receive vaccine counseling and administration from their usual source of primary care, like their family physician.” 

The federal government has also said it still has a supply of treatments for the public to access for free, but has not revealed how much it has on hand or given a timeline for the transition to the private market. 

COVID-19 tests, meanwhile, are no longer covered because of the end of the public health emergency, and cost about $45 per kit on average, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Pediatrician Lisa Costello, MD, MPH, knows that price point will be a challenge for some families she cares for at West Virginia University Medicine Children’s Hospital in Morgantown. Many still ask her where they can access free tests. 

“Testing if you’re a higher risk person is something we need to ensure that people continue to be educated about,” Dr. Costello said. 

She’s hopeful that COVID-19 vaccines and treatments such as Paxlovid will stay free in the coming months so patients can continue to easily access them.
 

Future of telehealth

Relaxed regulations of prescribing controlled substances via telehealth and across state lines allowed clinicians to treat patients near and far during the pandemic. But many providers were worried about a proposal from the Drug Enforcement Administration to clamp down on the prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth, according to A. Mark Fendrick, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“We were all panicking about what was going to happen to what is for many clinicians a very valuable policy,” Dr. Fendrick said of the telehealth flexibilities introduced during COVID-19. 

The DEA, after getting 38,000 comments on their proposed regulations, pulled back on that plan, delaying the cliff until November. 

Dr. Fendrick said that telehealth has allowed clinicians to reach patients who have historically faced barriers to care, such as lacking transportation. 

“The benefits of that outweigh the potential harms,” he said. “Every policy you make that tightens access because you want to decrease the untoward and unfortunate outcomes will also decrease access to clinical indications.”

The AAFP said it hopes for clear guidance from the DEA in the coming months on what the new telehealth landscape for prescribing will look like.
 

Medicaid changes

About half of the patients who see Dr. Khanna have insurance through Medicaid. 

During the public health emergency, states were not allowed to remove anyone from Medicaid, regardless of whether they no longer qualified for the program or not. But a law passed by Congress last year requires states to once again check Medicaid eligibility. As many as 15 million people could lose their Medicaid coverage. 

That could affect the treatments Dr. Khanna recommends for her patients who get kicked off because those who become uninsured or transition to private insurance will have to pay more out of pocket. Maryland will start removals in June. 

“When you have an uninsured patient versus Medicaid, it’s a huge difference in what you can ask the patient to do – the medications you can provide, the testing you can provide,” Dr. Khanna said. 

States were authorized to remove people from Medicaid as of April 1, with Arkansas, New Hampshire, and South Dakota starting right away. But many states are just now getting the review process going. About a dozen states, including Indiana, Ohio, Utah, and West Virginia, started removing people in May 2023. 

Uninsurance rates hit record lows across the United States during the pandemic. Keeping Americans on health insurance is a top priority for the AAFP, Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “We know health care coverage disruptions prevent people from seeking and accessing the care they need.”

Many people who are removed from Medicaid will be eligible for health insurance through employers, or through the Affordable Care Act’s private marketplace. But premiums and deductibles are often higher in these plans, which studies have shown result in patients delaying medical visits and not filling prescriptions or receiving treatment.
 

Staying mindful

Hospitals that receive federal funds will still have to report COVID-19 test results to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services through 2024, although private labs will no longer be obligated to do so. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will also continue to monitor virus levels in communities through wastewater. But some states will no longer collect data. 

Gone are the days when clinicians and others would watch for daily totals of case counts with the type of fervor typically reserved for live scoring updates during sports games, according to Dr. Costello.

“We just have to be mindful of the numbers that might be coming in,” Dr. Costello said.

Dr. Ransone, however, cautioned that clinicians not become complacent. In early May, Dr. Ransone saw two patients with conjunctivitis, what patients thought was simply pink eye – a symptom of the latest COVID-19 variant. Both patients told him it wasn’t possible they had COVID-19 because they didn’t have coughs. 

“I don’t want to see physician offices fall into that trap that it’s over and be a potential nidus for infection for other patients,” Dr. Ransone said. “It’s incumbent upon us to remind people of the current symptoms so that folks will know when they need to wear a mask when they’re around their grandmother.”

The move away from universal masking in the office has benefits. Many of his older patients have difficulty hearing and had used lip reading to help understand him, he said. During the pandemic, masks got in the way of that form of communication. Now they can see his mouth again and better decipher what he says.

“Being able to have that face-to-face contact, without a mask intervening, has been really beneficial for a lot of my older patients,” he said.

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

Rates of perinatal HIV have dropped so much that the disease is effectively eliminated in the United States, with less than 1 baby for every 100,000 live births having the virus, a new study released by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.

The report marks significant progress on the U.S. government’s goal to eradicate perinatal HIV, an immune-weakening and potentially deadly virus that is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Just 32 children in the country were diagnosed in 2019, compared with twice as many in 2010, according to the CDC.

Mothers who are HIV positive can prevent transmission of the infection by receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious disease and global medicine.

Dr. Gandhi said she could recall only one case of perinatal HIV in the San Francisco area over the last decade.

“This country has been really aggressive about counseling women who are pregnant and getting mothers in care,” Dr. Gandhi said.

The treatment method was discovered more than 30 years ago. Prior to the therapy and ensuing awareness campaigns to prevent transmission, mothers with HIV would typically pass the virus to their child in utero, during delivery, or while breastfeeding.

“There should be zero children born with HIV, given that we’ve had these drugs for so long,” Dr. Ghandi said. 
 

Disparities persist

But challenges remain in some communities, where babies born to Black mothers are disproportionately affected by the disease, the new study found. “Racial and ethnic differences in perinatal HIV diagnoses persisted through the 10-year period,” the report’s authors concluded. “The highest rates of perinatal HIV diagnoses were seen among infants born to Black women.”

Although rates of perinatal HIV declined for babies born to Black mothers over the decade-long study, the diagnosis rate was above the goal of elimination at 3.1 for every 100,000 live births, according to the data.

Meanwhile, transmission rates hovered around 1%-2% for Latinx and Hispanic women and mothers who identified as “other races,” including Native American.

Despite the availability of medication, expectant mothers may face several hurdles to getting the daily treatment they need to prevent transmission to their fetus, according to Jennifer Jao, MD, MPH, a physician of infectious diseases at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

They might have trouble securing health insurance or finding transportation to doctor’s appointments, or face other problems like lacking secure housing or food – all factors that prevent them from prioritizing the care.

“All of those things play into the mix,” Dr. Jao said. “We see over and over again that closing the gap means you’ve got to reach the women who are pregnant and who don’t have resources.”
 

Progress in ‘danger’

Experts said they’re not sure what the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by a recent uptick in sexually transmitted diseases, will be on rates of perinatal HIV. Some women were unable to access prenatal health care during the pandemic because they couldn’t access public transportation or childcare, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in 2022.

Globally, a decline in rates of HIV and AIDS rates has slowed, prompting the World Health Organization to warn last year that progress on the disease is in danger. Researchers only included HIV rates in the United States through 2019, so the data are outdated, Dr. Gandhi noted.

“All of this put together means we don’t know where we are with perinatal transmission over the last 3 years,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, MsGH, and Bill Kapogiannis, MD, both with the National Institutes of Health, urge health care professionals to take an active role in eliminating these racial and ethnic disparities in an effort to – as the title of their editorial proclaims – achieve a “road to zero perinatal HIV transmission” in the United States.

“The more proactive we are in identifying and promptly addressing systematic deficiencies that exacerbate health inequities in cutting-edge research innovations and optimal clinical service provision,” they write, “the less reactive we will need to be when new transmissible infections appear at our doorstep.”

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

Rates of perinatal HIV have dropped so much that the disease is effectively eliminated in the United States, with less than 1 baby for every 100,000 live births having the virus, a new study released by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.

The report marks significant progress on the U.S. government’s goal to eradicate perinatal HIV, an immune-weakening and potentially deadly virus that is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Just 32 children in the country were diagnosed in 2019, compared with twice as many in 2010, according to the CDC.

Mothers who are HIV positive can prevent transmission of the infection by receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious disease and global medicine.

Dr. Gandhi said she could recall only one case of perinatal HIV in the San Francisco area over the last decade.

“This country has been really aggressive about counseling women who are pregnant and getting mothers in care,” Dr. Gandhi said.

The treatment method was discovered more than 30 years ago. Prior to the therapy and ensuing awareness campaigns to prevent transmission, mothers with HIV would typically pass the virus to their child in utero, during delivery, or while breastfeeding.

“There should be zero children born with HIV, given that we’ve had these drugs for so long,” Dr. Ghandi said. 
 

Disparities persist

But challenges remain in some communities, where babies born to Black mothers are disproportionately affected by the disease, the new study found. “Racial and ethnic differences in perinatal HIV diagnoses persisted through the 10-year period,” the report’s authors concluded. “The highest rates of perinatal HIV diagnoses were seen among infants born to Black women.”

Although rates of perinatal HIV declined for babies born to Black mothers over the decade-long study, the diagnosis rate was above the goal of elimination at 3.1 for every 100,000 live births, according to the data.

Meanwhile, transmission rates hovered around 1%-2% for Latinx and Hispanic women and mothers who identified as “other races,” including Native American.

Despite the availability of medication, expectant mothers may face several hurdles to getting the daily treatment they need to prevent transmission to their fetus, according to Jennifer Jao, MD, MPH, a physician of infectious diseases at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

They might have trouble securing health insurance or finding transportation to doctor’s appointments, or face other problems like lacking secure housing or food – all factors that prevent them from prioritizing the care.

“All of those things play into the mix,” Dr. Jao said. “We see over and over again that closing the gap means you’ve got to reach the women who are pregnant and who don’t have resources.”
 

Progress in ‘danger’

Experts said they’re not sure what the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by a recent uptick in sexually transmitted diseases, will be on rates of perinatal HIV. Some women were unable to access prenatal health care during the pandemic because they couldn’t access public transportation or childcare, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in 2022.

Globally, a decline in rates of HIV and AIDS rates has slowed, prompting the World Health Organization to warn last year that progress on the disease is in danger. Researchers only included HIV rates in the United States through 2019, so the data are outdated, Dr. Gandhi noted.

“All of this put together means we don’t know where we are with perinatal transmission over the last 3 years,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, MsGH, and Bill Kapogiannis, MD, both with the National Institutes of Health, urge health care professionals to take an active role in eliminating these racial and ethnic disparities in an effort to – as the title of their editorial proclaims – achieve a “road to zero perinatal HIV transmission” in the United States.

“The more proactive we are in identifying and promptly addressing systematic deficiencies that exacerbate health inequities in cutting-edge research innovations and optimal clinical service provision,” they write, “the less reactive we will need to be when new transmissible infections appear at our doorstep.”

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

Rates of perinatal HIV have dropped so much that the disease is effectively eliminated in the United States, with less than 1 baby for every 100,000 live births having the virus, a new study released by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.

The report marks significant progress on the U.S. government’s goal to eradicate perinatal HIV, an immune-weakening and potentially deadly virus that is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Just 32 children in the country were diagnosed in 2019, compared with twice as many in 2010, according to the CDC.

Mothers who are HIV positive can prevent transmission of the infection by receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious disease and global medicine.

Dr. Gandhi said she could recall only one case of perinatal HIV in the San Francisco area over the last decade.

“This country has been really aggressive about counseling women who are pregnant and getting mothers in care,” Dr. Gandhi said.

The treatment method was discovered more than 30 years ago. Prior to the therapy and ensuing awareness campaigns to prevent transmission, mothers with HIV would typically pass the virus to their child in utero, during delivery, or while breastfeeding.

“There should be zero children born with HIV, given that we’ve had these drugs for so long,” Dr. Ghandi said. 
 

Disparities persist

But challenges remain in some communities, where babies born to Black mothers are disproportionately affected by the disease, the new study found. “Racial and ethnic differences in perinatal HIV diagnoses persisted through the 10-year period,” the report’s authors concluded. “The highest rates of perinatal HIV diagnoses were seen among infants born to Black women.”

Although rates of perinatal HIV declined for babies born to Black mothers over the decade-long study, the diagnosis rate was above the goal of elimination at 3.1 for every 100,000 live births, according to the data.

Meanwhile, transmission rates hovered around 1%-2% for Latinx and Hispanic women and mothers who identified as “other races,” including Native American.

Despite the availability of medication, expectant mothers may face several hurdles to getting the daily treatment they need to prevent transmission to their fetus, according to Jennifer Jao, MD, MPH, a physician of infectious diseases at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

They might have trouble securing health insurance or finding transportation to doctor’s appointments, or face other problems like lacking secure housing or food – all factors that prevent them from prioritizing the care.

“All of those things play into the mix,” Dr. Jao said. “We see over and over again that closing the gap means you’ve got to reach the women who are pregnant and who don’t have resources.”
 

Progress in ‘danger’

Experts said they’re not sure what the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by a recent uptick in sexually transmitted diseases, will be on rates of perinatal HIV. Some women were unable to access prenatal health care during the pandemic because they couldn’t access public transportation or childcare, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in 2022.

Globally, a decline in rates of HIV and AIDS rates has slowed, prompting the World Health Organization to warn last year that progress on the disease is in danger. Researchers only included HIV rates in the United States through 2019, so the data are outdated, Dr. Gandhi noted.

“All of this put together means we don’t know where we are with perinatal transmission over the last 3 years,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, MsGH, and Bill Kapogiannis, MD, both with the National Institutes of Health, urge health care professionals to take an active role in eliminating these racial and ethnic disparities in an effort to – as the title of their editorial proclaims – achieve a “road to zero perinatal HIV transmission” in the United States.

“The more proactive we are in identifying and promptly addressing systematic deficiencies that exacerbate health inequities in cutting-edge research innovations and optimal clinical service provision,” they write, “the less reactive we will need to be when new transmissible infections appear at our doorstep.”

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

Mindi Rosen met Seuli Brill, MD, at just the right time. 

Ms. Rosen’s firstborn son was in the neointensive natal unit at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, and she didn’t have a pediatrician picked out yet for the baby. Nor did she have a primary care physician who could help her manage the gestational diabetes she developed during her pregnancy.

Dr. Brill, a clinical associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at Ohio State, suggested Ms. Rosen visit her at the new clinic she was piloting in Columbus. There, she provided pediatric care for newborns and primary care for mothers who had developed gestational diabetes.  

“I looked at my husband, my husband looked at me, and I said: ‘Why not?’ “ Ms. Rosen, 38, recalled of that 2019 meeting. “I’m so glad she walked in at that moment.”

The mother of two is still part of the rapidly growing program at the medical facility that provides care for more than 200 mothers and babies.

Launched in 2018, the clinic – called the Multi-Modal Maternal Infant Perinatal Outpatient Delivery System, or “Momi Pods,” started with a focus  on helping women with gestational diabetes, which occurs in up to 10% of pregnancies.

The program allows moms to book regular checkups for their baby, and then a follow-up appointment immediately after for themselves. Women are seen for the first 1,000 days (just under 3 years) after giving birth.

The idea was simple. Dr. Brill wanted to develop a more formalized program for the work she was already doing as a primary care physician and pediatrician. At the time, she was fielding referrals from specialists for young women who didn’t have a physician. She’d often develop a relationship with the patient over the years, go on to help oversee their care during pregnancy, then new mothers would select her as their newborn’s pediatrician.

“I would have a relationship with the mom when they did have the newborn, and then I would see the baby because I’m a pediatrician,” Dr. Brill said.

Dr. Brill was serving on the Ohio Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Collaborative, a state-backed program that aims to raise awareness about the condition and encourage more preventative care for patients. She presented her proposal to launch the program to the Ohio Department of Medicaid, which helped to fund the pilot.

The idea, she hoped, would improve postpartum follow-up care for mothers diagnosed with the condition. 

Follow-up care is especially important for women who develop gestational diabetes because the condition raises their lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes up to 10-fold. 

Yet most of those mothers don’t get the appropriate follow-up care during the crucial postpartum period, said Maya Subbalakshmi Venkataramani, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who has researched parental care. 

“Things get very busy after you have a child. There’s just the general logistics of a mom having to take care of a newborn and thinking about themselves,” Dr. Venkataramani, a primary care clinician and pediatrician, said. “A lot of parents in general may not put a lot of emphasis on their own health.”

Seeking care may be especially difficult for low-income mothers who might not have consistent health care coverage, she added.

In fact, only half of women who developed gestational diabetes received primary follow-up care, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open. The study, which examined more than 280,000 insurance claims between 2015 and 2018, found only 36% of women with gestational diabetes received the recommended blood glucose testing in the first 12 weeks of the postpartum period.

In the Momi Pods program, Dr. Brill checked in on Ms. Rosen’s gestational diabetes regularly during pediatric office visits for her newborn’s care. Ms. Rosen said whenever she brought her baby in for a visit during the postpartum period, Dr. Brill measured her blood sugar. 

Dr. Brill and her team also asked how Ms. Rosen was doing physically and mentally during each visit. The screenings helped to catch a bout of postpartum depression Ms. Rosen experienced after the birth of her first son.

“I thought it was great, because honestly as a new mom I wouldn’t have followed up with myself so much,” Ms. Rosen said. “Every time you went into the doctor appointments, they’d ask you how you are doing. As a new mom, it’s so much easier to do it at the same time.”

Those who participate in the program are also more likely to complete postpartum visits with their ob.gyn. (95% vs. 58%, respectively; P < .001) than those who don’t participate, according to research Dr. Brill and colleagues published.

Dr. Brill began expanding the program’s reach nearly 2 years after its launch, targeting the services for women who are at risk for poor postpartum outcomes, including those with a history of depression, preterm labor, diabetes and congenital heart disease. Ob.gyns. in Ohio State’s network can refer their patients to the program, which now has 43 doctors trained to provide primary and pediatric care through Momi Pods. Soon-to-be moms can be referred to the program as early as the second trimester, Dr. Brill said.

Many of the mothers referred to the program don’t have a primary care clinician when they talk to Paola Beamon, RN, at Ohio State. Ms. Beamon reaches out to each referred patient over voicemail, a MyChart message, and even regular mail in hopes of helping them navigate the postpartum period. She also provides education on what a primary care clinician can offer new moms.

“Really, we’re pursuing these moms and doing everything we can so there’s less of a burden for them,” Ms. Beamon said. “A lot of them don’t even know what a primary care office does.”

One of the biggest perks to the program for new moms is that they don’t have to spend time and money traveling to a different doctor’s office, take time off work, or secure childcare in order to schedule a separate appointment for themselves, she said.

The program, which receives funding from the university and the state, even helps women get bus passes to a doctor’s appointment if needed.

Dyad programs targeting women with substance abuse disorders or mental health conditions have existed for many years. But catering to women with gestational diabetes or other medical conditions appears to be new. In part, Dr. Venkataramani said, because scheduling and space can be big hurdles to launch such a program, as well as finding doctors who can care for both baby and mother.

“There are logistical challenges to even doing this that makes it less common,” she said.

Dr. Brill said she is not aware of any other programs that are structured like the tandem care clinic at Ohio State. She hopes, however, that the program can be a model for other hospital systems to consider, and she is working to expand the program regionally. Her team is collecting data – including on the best way to schedule patients – to help other clinics develop something similar. 

“We really want to leverage that expertise to make it easier for moms to get care with their infants and remove barriers to care,” she said.

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

Mindi Rosen met Seuli Brill, MD, at just the right time. 

Ms. Rosen’s firstborn son was in the neointensive natal unit at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, and she didn’t have a pediatrician picked out yet for the baby. Nor did she have a primary care physician who could help her manage the gestational diabetes she developed during her pregnancy.

Dr. Brill, a clinical associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at Ohio State, suggested Ms. Rosen visit her at the new clinic she was piloting in Columbus. There, she provided pediatric care for newborns and primary care for mothers who had developed gestational diabetes.  

“I looked at my husband, my husband looked at me, and I said: ‘Why not?’ “ Ms. Rosen, 38, recalled of that 2019 meeting. “I’m so glad she walked in at that moment.”

The mother of two is still part of the rapidly growing program at the medical facility that provides care for more than 200 mothers and babies.

Launched in 2018, the clinic – called the Multi-Modal Maternal Infant Perinatal Outpatient Delivery System, or “Momi Pods,” started with a focus  on helping women with gestational diabetes, which occurs in up to 10% of pregnancies.

The program allows moms to book regular checkups for their baby, and then a follow-up appointment immediately after for themselves. Women are seen for the first 1,000 days (just under 3 years) after giving birth.

The idea was simple. Dr. Brill wanted to develop a more formalized program for the work she was already doing as a primary care physician and pediatrician. At the time, she was fielding referrals from specialists for young women who didn’t have a physician. She’d often develop a relationship with the patient over the years, go on to help oversee their care during pregnancy, then new mothers would select her as their newborn’s pediatrician.

“I would have a relationship with the mom when they did have the newborn, and then I would see the baby because I’m a pediatrician,” Dr. Brill said.

Dr. Brill was serving on the Ohio Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Collaborative, a state-backed program that aims to raise awareness about the condition and encourage more preventative care for patients. She presented her proposal to launch the program to the Ohio Department of Medicaid, which helped to fund the pilot.

The idea, she hoped, would improve postpartum follow-up care for mothers diagnosed with the condition. 

Follow-up care is especially important for women who develop gestational diabetes because the condition raises their lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes up to 10-fold. 

Yet most of those mothers don’t get the appropriate follow-up care during the crucial postpartum period, said Maya Subbalakshmi Venkataramani, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who has researched parental care. 

“Things get very busy after you have a child. There’s just the general logistics of a mom having to take care of a newborn and thinking about themselves,” Dr. Venkataramani, a primary care clinician and pediatrician, said. “A lot of parents in general may not put a lot of emphasis on their own health.”

Seeking care may be especially difficult for low-income mothers who might not have consistent health care coverage, she added.

In fact, only half of women who developed gestational diabetes received primary follow-up care, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open. The study, which examined more than 280,000 insurance claims between 2015 and 2018, found only 36% of women with gestational diabetes received the recommended blood glucose testing in the first 12 weeks of the postpartum period.

In the Momi Pods program, Dr. Brill checked in on Ms. Rosen’s gestational diabetes regularly during pediatric office visits for her newborn’s care. Ms. Rosen said whenever she brought her baby in for a visit during the postpartum period, Dr. Brill measured her blood sugar. 

Dr. Brill and her team also asked how Ms. Rosen was doing physically and mentally during each visit. The screenings helped to catch a bout of postpartum depression Ms. Rosen experienced after the birth of her first son.

“I thought it was great, because honestly as a new mom I wouldn’t have followed up with myself so much,” Ms. Rosen said. “Every time you went into the doctor appointments, they’d ask you how you are doing. As a new mom, it’s so much easier to do it at the same time.”

Those who participate in the program are also more likely to complete postpartum visits with their ob.gyn. (95% vs. 58%, respectively; P < .001) than those who don’t participate, according to research Dr. Brill and colleagues published.

Dr. Brill began expanding the program’s reach nearly 2 years after its launch, targeting the services for women who are at risk for poor postpartum outcomes, including those with a history of depression, preterm labor, diabetes and congenital heart disease. Ob.gyns. in Ohio State’s network can refer their patients to the program, which now has 43 doctors trained to provide primary and pediatric care through Momi Pods. Soon-to-be moms can be referred to the program as early as the second trimester, Dr. Brill said.

Many of the mothers referred to the program don’t have a primary care clinician when they talk to Paola Beamon, RN, at Ohio State. Ms. Beamon reaches out to each referred patient over voicemail, a MyChart message, and even regular mail in hopes of helping them navigate the postpartum period. She also provides education on what a primary care clinician can offer new moms.

“Really, we’re pursuing these moms and doing everything we can so there’s less of a burden for them,” Ms. Beamon said. “A lot of them don’t even know what a primary care office does.”

One of the biggest perks to the program for new moms is that they don’t have to spend time and money traveling to a different doctor’s office, take time off work, or secure childcare in order to schedule a separate appointment for themselves, she said.

The program, which receives funding from the university and the state, even helps women get bus passes to a doctor’s appointment if needed.

Dyad programs targeting women with substance abuse disorders or mental health conditions have existed for many years. But catering to women with gestational diabetes or other medical conditions appears to be new. In part, Dr. Venkataramani said, because scheduling and space can be big hurdles to launch such a program, as well as finding doctors who can care for both baby and mother.

“There are logistical challenges to even doing this that makes it less common,” she said.

Dr. Brill said she is not aware of any other programs that are structured like the tandem care clinic at Ohio State. She hopes, however, that the program can be a model for other hospital systems to consider, and she is working to expand the program regionally. Her team is collecting data – including on the best way to schedule patients – to help other clinics develop something similar. 

“We really want to leverage that expertise to make it easier for moms to get care with their infants and remove barriers to care,” she said.

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

Mindi Rosen met Seuli Brill, MD, at just the right time. 

Ms. Rosen’s firstborn son was in the neointensive natal unit at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, and she didn’t have a pediatrician picked out yet for the baby. Nor did she have a primary care physician who could help her manage the gestational diabetes she developed during her pregnancy.

Dr. Brill, a clinical associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at Ohio State, suggested Ms. Rosen visit her at the new clinic she was piloting in Columbus. There, she provided pediatric care for newborns and primary care for mothers who had developed gestational diabetes.  

“I looked at my husband, my husband looked at me, and I said: ‘Why not?’ “ Ms. Rosen, 38, recalled of that 2019 meeting. “I’m so glad she walked in at that moment.”

The mother of two is still part of the rapidly growing program at the medical facility that provides care for more than 200 mothers and babies.

Launched in 2018, the clinic – called the Multi-Modal Maternal Infant Perinatal Outpatient Delivery System, or “Momi Pods,” started with a focus  on helping women with gestational diabetes, which occurs in up to 10% of pregnancies.

The program allows moms to book regular checkups for their baby, and then a follow-up appointment immediately after for themselves. Women are seen for the first 1,000 days (just under 3 years) after giving birth.

The idea was simple. Dr. Brill wanted to develop a more formalized program for the work she was already doing as a primary care physician and pediatrician. At the time, she was fielding referrals from specialists for young women who didn’t have a physician. She’d often develop a relationship with the patient over the years, go on to help oversee their care during pregnancy, then new mothers would select her as their newborn’s pediatrician.

“I would have a relationship with the mom when they did have the newborn, and then I would see the baby because I’m a pediatrician,” Dr. Brill said.

Dr. Brill was serving on the Ohio Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Collaborative, a state-backed program that aims to raise awareness about the condition and encourage more preventative care for patients. She presented her proposal to launch the program to the Ohio Department of Medicaid, which helped to fund the pilot.

The idea, she hoped, would improve postpartum follow-up care for mothers diagnosed with the condition. 

Follow-up care is especially important for women who develop gestational diabetes because the condition raises their lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes up to 10-fold. 

Yet most of those mothers don’t get the appropriate follow-up care during the crucial postpartum period, said Maya Subbalakshmi Venkataramani, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who has researched parental care. 

“Things get very busy after you have a child. There’s just the general logistics of a mom having to take care of a newborn and thinking about themselves,” Dr. Venkataramani, a primary care clinician and pediatrician, said. “A lot of parents in general may not put a lot of emphasis on their own health.”

Seeking care may be especially difficult for low-income mothers who might not have consistent health care coverage, she added.

In fact, only half of women who developed gestational diabetes received primary follow-up care, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open. The study, which examined more than 280,000 insurance claims between 2015 and 2018, found only 36% of women with gestational diabetes received the recommended blood glucose testing in the first 12 weeks of the postpartum period.

In the Momi Pods program, Dr. Brill checked in on Ms. Rosen’s gestational diabetes regularly during pediatric office visits for her newborn’s care. Ms. Rosen said whenever she brought her baby in for a visit during the postpartum period, Dr. Brill measured her blood sugar. 

Dr. Brill and her team also asked how Ms. Rosen was doing physically and mentally during each visit. The screenings helped to catch a bout of postpartum depression Ms. Rosen experienced after the birth of her first son.

“I thought it was great, because honestly as a new mom I wouldn’t have followed up with myself so much,” Ms. Rosen said. “Every time you went into the doctor appointments, they’d ask you how you are doing. As a new mom, it’s so much easier to do it at the same time.”

Those who participate in the program are also more likely to complete postpartum visits with their ob.gyn. (95% vs. 58%, respectively; P < .001) than those who don’t participate, according to research Dr. Brill and colleagues published.

Dr. Brill began expanding the program’s reach nearly 2 years after its launch, targeting the services for women who are at risk for poor postpartum outcomes, including those with a history of depression, preterm labor, diabetes and congenital heart disease. Ob.gyns. in Ohio State’s network can refer their patients to the program, which now has 43 doctors trained to provide primary and pediatric care through Momi Pods. Soon-to-be moms can be referred to the program as early as the second trimester, Dr. Brill said.

Many of the mothers referred to the program don’t have a primary care clinician when they talk to Paola Beamon, RN, at Ohio State. Ms. Beamon reaches out to each referred patient over voicemail, a MyChart message, and even regular mail in hopes of helping them navigate the postpartum period. She also provides education on what a primary care clinician can offer new moms.

“Really, we’re pursuing these moms and doing everything we can so there’s less of a burden for them,” Ms. Beamon said. “A lot of them don’t even know what a primary care office does.”

One of the biggest perks to the program for new moms is that they don’t have to spend time and money traveling to a different doctor’s office, take time off work, or secure childcare in order to schedule a separate appointment for themselves, she said.

The program, which receives funding from the university and the state, even helps women get bus passes to a doctor’s appointment if needed.

Dyad programs targeting women with substance abuse disorders or mental health conditions have existed for many years. But catering to women with gestational diabetes or other medical conditions appears to be new. In part, Dr. Venkataramani said, because scheduling and space can be big hurdles to launch such a program, as well as finding doctors who can care for both baby and mother.

“There are logistical challenges to even doing this that makes it less common,” she said.

Dr. Brill said she is not aware of any other programs that are structured like the tandem care clinic at Ohio State. She hopes, however, that the program can be a model for other hospital systems to consider, and she is working to expand the program regionally. Her team is collecting data – including on the best way to schedule patients – to help other clinics develop something similar. 

“We really want to leverage that expertise to make it easier for moms to get care with their infants and remove barriers to care,” she said.

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

More than 2,800 counties in the United States lack a practicing pediatric ophthalmologist, limiting easy access to specialized eye care, a new study found.
 

The review of public, online pediatric ophthalmology directories found 1,056 pediatric ophthalmologists registered. The majority of these doctors practiced in densely populated areas, leaving many poor and rural residents across the United States without a nearby doctor to visit, and with the burden of spending time and money to get care for their children.

Travel for that care may be out of reach for some, according to Hannah Walsh, a medical student at the University of Miami, who led the study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Ms. Walsh’s research found that the median income of families living in a county without a pediatric ophthalmologist was nearly $17,000 lower than that for families with access to such specialists (95% confidence interval, −$18,544 to −$14,389; P < .001). These families were also less likely to own a car.

“We found that counties that didn’t have access to ophthalmic care for pediatrics were already disproportionately affected by lower socioeconomic status,” she said.

Children often receive routine vision screenings through their primary care clinician, but children who fail a routine screening may need to visit a pediatric ophthalmologist for a full eye examination, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Ms. Walsh and colleagues pulled data in March 2022 on the demographics of pediatric ophthalmologists from online directories hosted by the AAO and the American Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. Ms. Walsh cautioned that the directories might include eye doctors who are no longer practicing, or there might be specialists who had not registered for the databases.

Yasmin Bradfield, MD, a pediatric ophthalmologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, noted that after the study published, pediatric ophthalmologists from Vermont and New Mexico notified study authors and AAPOS that they are practicing in the states.

Dr. Bradfield, a board member of AAPOS who also heads the organization’s recruitment task force, said the organization is aware of only one state – Wyoming – without a currently practicing pediatric ophthalmologist.

But based on the March 2022 data, Ms. Walsh and her colleagues found four states – New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont – did not have any pediatric ophthalmologists listed in directories for the organizations. Meanwhile, the country’s most populous states – California, New York, Florida, and Texas – had the most pediatric ophthalmologists.

For every million people, the study identified 7.7 pediatric ophthalmologists nationwide.

Julius T. Oatts, MD, the lead author of an accompanying editorial, said the findings are “valuable and sobering.” Even in San Francisco, where Dr. Oatts practices, most pediatric eye specialists have 6-month wait lists, he said.

Not fixing the shortage of children’s eye doctors could carry lifetime consequences, Dr. Oatts and his colleagues warned.

“Vision and eye health represent an important health barrier to learning in children,” Dr. Oatts and his colleagues wrote. “Lack of access to pediatric vision screening and care also contributes to the academic achievement gap and educational disparities.”

Dr. Bradfield said that disparities in pediatric ophthalmology care could leave some children at risk for losing their vision or never being able to see 20/20. Parents living in areas without a specialist may decide to instead visit an optometrist, but they are not trained to treat serious cases, such as strabismus, and only test and diagnose vision changes, according to AAPOS.

“If we don’t get to the kids in time, they can lose vision permanently, even if it’s something as simple as they just need glasses as a toddler,” Dr. Bradfield said.

Dr. Bradfield said AAPOS is recruiting new pediatric ophthalmologists by offering fellowships for medical students to attend the association’s annual conference and creating shadowing opportunities for students. The society also will release a survey of pediatric ophthalmology salaries to dispel rumors that the specialty does not have lucrative wages.

Ms. Walsh said she was interested in looking at disparities in pediatric ophthalmology care, in part, because she was surprised by how few of her classmates attending medical school were interested in the field of study.

“I hope it encourages ophthalmologists to consider pediatric ophthalmology, or to consider volunteering their time, or going to underserved areas to provide care to families that really are in need,” she said.

Coauthor Jayanth Sridhar, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Alcon, Apellis, Allergan, Dutch Ophthalmic Research Center, Genentech, OcuTerra Therapeutics, and Regeneron outside the submitted work. The other authors and the editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

*This article was updated on 2/2/2023.

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

More than 2,800 counties in the United States lack a practicing pediatric ophthalmologist, limiting easy access to specialized eye care, a new study found.
 

The review of public, online pediatric ophthalmology directories found 1,056 pediatric ophthalmologists registered. The majority of these doctors practiced in densely populated areas, leaving many poor and rural residents across the United States without a nearby doctor to visit, and with the burden of spending time and money to get care for their children.

Travel for that care may be out of reach for some, according to Hannah Walsh, a medical student at the University of Miami, who led the study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Ms. Walsh’s research found that the median income of families living in a county without a pediatric ophthalmologist was nearly $17,000 lower than that for families with access to such specialists (95% confidence interval, −$18,544 to −$14,389; P < .001). These families were also less likely to own a car.

“We found that counties that didn’t have access to ophthalmic care for pediatrics were already disproportionately affected by lower socioeconomic status,” she said.

Children often receive routine vision screenings through their primary care clinician, but children who fail a routine screening may need to visit a pediatric ophthalmologist for a full eye examination, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Ms. Walsh and colleagues pulled data in March 2022 on the demographics of pediatric ophthalmologists from online directories hosted by the AAO and the American Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. Ms. Walsh cautioned that the directories might include eye doctors who are no longer practicing, or there might be specialists who had not registered for the databases.

Yasmin Bradfield, MD, a pediatric ophthalmologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, noted that after the study published, pediatric ophthalmologists from Vermont and New Mexico notified study authors and AAPOS that they are practicing in the states.

Dr. Bradfield, a board member of AAPOS who also heads the organization’s recruitment task force, said the organization is aware of only one state – Wyoming – without a currently practicing pediatric ophthalmologist.

But based on the March 2022 data, Ms. Walsh and her colleagues found four states – New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont – did not have any pediatric ophthalmologists listed in directories for the organizations. Meanwhile, the country’s most populous states – California, New York, Florida, and Texas – had the most pediatric ophthalmologists.

For every million people, the study identified 7.7 pediatric ophthalmologists nationwide.

Julius T. Oatts, MD, the lead author of an accompanying editorial, said the findings are “valuable and sobering.” Even in San Francisco, where Dr. Oatts practices, most pediatric eye specialists have 6-month wait lists, he said.

Not fixing the shortage of children’s eye doctors could carry lifetime consequences, Dr. Oatts and his colleagues warned.

“Vision and eye health represent an important health barrier to learning in children,” Dr. Oatts and his colleagues wrote. “Lack of access to pediatric vision screening and care also contributes to the academic achievement gap and educational disparities.”

Dr. Bradfield said that disparities in pediatric ophthalmology care could leave some children at risk for losing their vision or never being able to see 20/20. Parents living in areas without a specialist may decide to instead visit an optometrist, but they are not trained to treat serious cases, such as strabismus, and only test and diagnose vision changes, according to AAPOS.

“If we don’t get to the kids in time, they can lose vision permanently, even if it’s something as simple as they just need glasses as a toddler,” Dr. Bradfield said.

Dr. Bradfield said AAPOS is recruiting new pediatric ophthalmologists by offering fellowships for medical students to attend the association’s annual conference and creating shadowing opportunities for students. The society also will release a survey of pediatric ophthalmology salaries to dispel rumors that the specialty does not have lucrative wages.

Ms. Walsh said she was interested in looking at disparities in pediatric ophthalmology care, in part, because she was surprised by how few of her classmates attending medical school were interested in the field of study.

“I hope it encourages ophthalmologists to consider pediatric ophthalmology, or to consider volunteering their time, or going to underserved areas to provide care to families that really are in need,” she said.

Coauthor Jayanth Sridhar, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Alcon, Apellis, Allergan, Dutch Ophthalmic Research Center, Genentech, OcuTerra Therapeutics, and Regeneron outside the submitted work. The other authors and the editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

*This article was updated on 2/2/2023.

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

More than 2,800 counties in the United States lack a practicing pediatric ophthalmologist, limiting easy access to specialized eye care, a new study found.
 

The review of public, online pediatric ophthalmology directories found 1,056 pediatric ophthalmologists registered. The majority of these doctors practiced in densely populated areas, leaving many poor and rural residents across the United States without a nearby doctor to visit, and with the burden of spending time and money to get care for their children.

Travel for that care may be out of reach for some, according to Hannah Walsh, a medical student at the University of Miami, who led the study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Ms. Walsh’s research found that the median income of families living in a county without a pediatric ophthalmologist was nearly $17,000 lower than that for families with access to such specialists (95% confidence interval, −$18,544 to −$14,389; P < .001). These families were also less likely to own a car.

“We found that counties that didn’t have access to ophthalmic care for pediatrics were already disproportionately affected by lower socioeconomic status,” she said.

Children often receive routine vision screenings through their primary care clinician, but children who fail a routine screening may need to visit a pediatric ophthalmologist for a full eye examination, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Ms. Walsh and colleagues pulled data in March 2022 on the demographics of pediatric ophthalmologists from online directories hosted by the AAO and the American Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. Ms. Walsh cautioned that the directories might include eye doctors who are no longer practicing, or there might be specialists who had not registered for the databases.

Yasmin Bradfield, MD, a pediatric ophthalmologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, noted that after the study published, pediatric ophthalmologists from Vermont and New Mexico notified study authors and AAPOS that they are practicing in the states.

Dr. Bradfield, a board member of AAPOS who also heads the organization’s recruitment task force, said the organization is aware of only one state – Wyoming – without a currently practicing pediatric ophthalmologist.

But based on the March 2022 data, Ms. Walsh and her colleagues found four states – New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont – did not have any pediatric ophthalmologists listed in directories for the organizations. Meanwhile, the country’s most populous states – California, New York, Florida, and Texas – had the most pediatric ophthalmologists.

For every million people, the study identified 7.7 pediatric ophthalmologists nationwide.

Julius T. Oatts, MD, the lead author of an accompanying editorial, said the findings are “valuable and sobering.” Even in San Francisco, where Dr. Oatts practices, most pediatric eye specialists have 6-month wait lists, he said.

Not fixing the shortage of children’s eye doctors could carry lifetime consequences, Dr. Oatts and his colleagues warned.

“Vision and eye health represent an important health barrier to learning in children,” Dr. Oatts and his colleagues wrote. “Lack of access to pediatric vision screening and care also contributes to the academic achievement gap and educational disparities.”

Dr. Bradfield said that disparities in pediatric ophthalmology care could leave some children at risk for losing their vision or never being able to see 20/20. Parents living in areas without a specialist may decide to instead visit an optometrist, but they are not trained to treat serious cases, such as strabismus, and only test and diagnose vision changes, according to AAPOS.

“If we don’t get to the kids in time, they can lose vision permanently, even if it’s something as simple as they just need glasses as a toddler,” Dr. Bradfield said.

Dr. Bradfield said AAPOS is recruiting new pediatric ophthalmologists by offering fellowships for medical students to attend the association’s annual conference and creating shadowing opportunities for students. The society also will release a survey of pediatric ophthalmology salaries to dispel rumors that the specialty does not have lucrative wages.

Ms. Walsh said she was interested in looking at disparities in pediatric ophthalmology care, in part, because she was surprised by how few of her classmates attending medical school were interested in the field of study.

“I hope it encourages ophthalmologists to consider pediatric ophthalmology, or to consider volunteering their time, or going to underserved areas to provide care to families that really are in need,” she said.

Coauthor Jayanth Sridhar, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Alcon, Apellis, Allergan, Dutch Ophthalmic Research Center, Genentech, OcuTerra Therapeutics, and Regeneron outside the submitted work. The other authors and the editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

*This article was updated on 2/2/2023.

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

Women living in states that expanded Medicaid over the past decade were nearly 20% less likely to be hospitalized within 2 months of giving birth, according to a first-of-its-kind study published in Health Affairs.

Researchers analyzed patient records from eight states – four that expanded Medicaid insurance to include a broader swath of residents following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and four states that did not.

Hospitalizations in the 60 days after a woman gave birth fell by 17% in states that expanded Medicaid. The analysis also revealed an 8% drop in hospitalizations between 61 days and 6 months post partum.

“This is a very meaningful decline in hospitalization rates,” said Laura Wherry, PhD, a professor of economics and public service at New York University and a co-author of the study.

Women in states that chose not to expand Medicaid experienced a 7% increase in postpartum hospitalizations during that same time frame, the researchers report.

Many states raised income eligibility thresholds to 138% of the federal poverty level in 2014 with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which resulted in more coverage for low-income expectant mothers. To date, a dozen states have not implemented Medicaid expansion.

Dr. Wherry and her colleague wanted to take a closer look at outcomes for pregnant women during the postpartum period, both before and after states chose to expand Medicaid.

“A lot of prior work looking at the Medicaid program examined huge expansions to cover pregnant women during pregnancy, but often other periods of a woman’s life have been overlooked,” Dr. Wherry said. “What we were interested in is how that changed with the Affordable Care Act. You no longer needed to be pregnant to qualify.”

The researchers analyzed hospital discharge data between 2010 and 2017 before and after expansion in Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, and Washington, which expanded coverage under Medicaid, and Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Utah, which did not do so.

Prior to 2014, fewer than 2% of births resulted in a postpartum hospitalization during the 60-day period in Medicaid expansion states. But in states that expanded Medicaid, hospitalizations decreased by 0.289 percentage points (P = .052), or 17% during the 60-day post-birth period.

Approximately 75% of the decline was attributed to diagnoses related to complications in pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period.

Dr. Wherry said a variety of factors possibly drove down hospitalizations for new mothers who were able to obtain Medicaid coverage, including access to robust prenatal care, preconception counseling, and improved management of postpartum conditions outside the hospital.

The study provides a strategy for tackling the rising rate of maternal mortality in the United States, an increase largely attributed to postpartum deaths, said Lindsay Admon, MD, an ob.gyn. at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor.

“This is one of the first studies showing or suggesting that Medicaid expansion not only led to improvements in Medicaid insurance but health outcomes as well,” said Dr. Admon, who is also researching maternal health and expanded Medicaid coverage.

Federal law has long required states to provide coverage for pregnant women up to 60 days post partum.

The 2021 American Rescue Act allowed states to extend coverage for pregnant women beyond the federal requirement to a year. More than half of states have chosen to do so. Since the study indicates that Medicaid expansion improves outcomes for these enrollees, Dr. Wherry and Dr. Admon said they hope state officials will consider the new findings during discussions to utilize the Rescue Act Coverage for pregnant women.

Dr. Wherry received support for the study from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Policies for Action Program and grant funding from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Another author received grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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

Women living in states that expanded Medicaid over the past decade were nearly 20% less likely to be hospitalized within 2 months of giving birth, according to a first-of-its-kind study published in Health Affairs.

Researchers analyzed patient records from eight states – four that expanded Medicaid insurance to include a broader swath of residents following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and four states that did not.

Hospitalizations in the 60 days after a woman gave birth fell by 17% in states that expanded Medicaid. The analysis also revealed an 8% drop in hospitalizations between 61 days and 6 months post partum.

“This is a very meaningful decline in hospitalization rates,” said Laura Wherry, PhD, a professor of economics and public service at New York University and a co-author of the study.

Women in states that chose not to expand Medicaid experienced a 7% increase in postpartum hospitalizations during that same time frame, the researchers report.

Many states raised income eligibility thresholds to 138% of the federal poverty level in 2014 with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which resulted in more coverage for low-income expectant mothers. To date, a dozen states have not implemented Medicaid expansion.

Dr. Wherry and her colleague wanted to take a closer look at outcomes for pregnant women during the postpartum period, both before and after states chose to expand Medicaid.

“A lot of prior work looking at the Medicaid program examined huge expansions to cover pregnant women during pregnancy, but often other periods of a woman’s life have been overlooked,” Dr. Wherry said. “What we were interested in is how that changed with the Affordable Care Act. You no longer needed to be pregnant to qualify.”

The researchers analyzed hospital discharge data between 2010 and 2017 before and after expansion in Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, and Washington, which expanded coverage under Medicaid, and Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Utah, which did not do so.

Prior to 2014, fewer than 2% of births resulted in a postpartum hospitalization during the 60-day period in Medicaid expansion states. But in states that expanded Medicaid, hospitalizations decreased by 0.289 percentage points (P = .052), or 17% during the 60-day post-birth period.

Approximately 75% of the decline was attributed to diagnoses related to complications in pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period.

Dr. Wherry said a variety of factors possibly drove down hospitalizations for new mothers who were able to obtain Medicaid coverage, including access to robust prenatal care, preconception counseling, and improved management of postpartum conditions outside the hospital.

The study provides a strategy for tackling the rising rate of maternal mortality in the United States, an increase largely attributed to postpartum deaths, said Lindsay Admon, MD, an ob.gyn. at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor.

“This is one of the first studies showing or suggesting that Medicaid expansion not only led to improvements in Medicaid insurance but health outcomes as well,” said Dr. Admon, who is also researching maternal health and expanded Medicaid coverage.

Federal law has long required states to provide coverage for pregnant women up to 60 days post partum.

The 2021 American Rescue Act allowed states to extend coverage for pregnant women beyond the federal requirement to a year. More than half of states have chosen to do so. Since the study indicates that Medicaid expansion improves outcomes for these enrollees, Dr. Wherry and Dr. Admon said they hope state officials will consider the new findings during discussions to utilize the Rescue Act Coverage for pregnant women.

Dr. Wherry received support for the study from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Policies for Action Program and grant funding from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Another author received grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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

Women living in states that expanded Medicaid over the past decade were nearly 20% less likely to be hospitalized within 2 months of giving birth, according to a first-of-its-kind study published in Health Affairs.

Researchers analyzed patient records from eight states – four that expanded Medicaid insurance to include a broader swath of residents following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and four states that did not.

Hospitalizations in the 60 days after a woman gave birth fell by 17% in states that expanded Medicaid. The analysis also revealed an 8% drop in hospitalizations between 61 days and 6 months post partum.

“This is a very meaningful decline in hospitalization rates,” said Laura Wherry, PhD, a professor of economics and public service at New York University and a co-author of the study.

Women in states that chose not to expand Medicaid experienced a 7% increase in postpartum hospitalizations during that same time frame, the researchers report.

Many states raised income eligibility thresholds to 138% of the federal poverty level in 2014 with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which resulted in more coverage for low-income expectant mothers. To date, a dozen states have not implemented Medicaid expansion.

Dr. Wherry and her colleague wanted to take a closer look at outcomes for pregnant women during the postpartum period, both before and after states chose to expand Medicaid.

“A lot of prior work looking at the Medicaid program examined huge expansions to cover pregnant women during pregnancy, but often other periods of a woman’s life have been overlooked,” Dr. Wherry said. “What we were interested in is how that changed with the Affordable Care Act. You no longer needed to be pregnant to qualify.”

The researchers analyzed hospital discharge data between 2010 and 2017 before and after expansion in Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, and Washington, which expanded coverage under Medicaid, and Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Utah, which did not do so.

Prior to 2014, fewer than 2% of births resulted in a postpartum hospitalization during the 60-day period in Medicaid expansion states. But in states that expanded Medicaid, hospitalizations decreased by 0.289 percentage points (P = .052), or 17% during the 60-day post-birth period.

Approximately 75% of the decline was attributed to diagnoses related to complications in pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period.

Dr. Wherry said a variety of factors possibly drove down hospitalizations for new mothers who were able to obtain Medicaid coverage, including access to robust prenatal care, preconception counseling, and improved management of postpartum conditions outside the hospital.

The study provides a strategy for tackling the rising rate of maternal mortality in the United States, an increase largely attributed to postpartum deaths, said Lindsay Admon, MD, an ob.gyn. at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor.

“This is one of the first studies showing or suggesting that Medicaid expansion not only led to improvements in Medicaid insurance but health outcomes as well,” said Dr. Admon, who is also researching maternal health and expanded Medicaid coverage.

Federal law has long required states to provide coverage for pregnant women up to 60 days post partum.

The 2021 American Rescue Act allowed states to extend coverage for pregnant women beyond the federal requirement to a year. More than half of states have chosen to do so. Since the study indicates that Medicaid expansion improves outcomes for these enrollees, Dr. Wherry and Dr. Admon said they hope state officials will consider the new findings during discussions to utilize the Rescue Act Coverage for pregnant women.

Dr. Wherry received support for the study from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Policies for Action Program and grant funding from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Another author received grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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

Women who conceived within 6 months of having a miscarriage or an induced abortion did not appear to be at an increased risk of a problematic pregnancy, a new study of more than 70,000 live births in Norway has found.

The findings, published online in PLOS Medicine, should help women and clinicians navigate conflicting guidance over how soon it is safe to conceive again after a pregnancy loss, said Gizachew Tessema, PhD, senior research fellow at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, and the lead author of the research.

“Especially after a miscarriage, women want to conceive again,” Dr. Tessema told this news organization. “Why should they wait if there’s no increased risk?”

On the international front, the World Health Organization advises patients not to attempt to become pregnant until a minimum of 6 months after an abortion or miscarriage. Those 2007 recommendations spurred Dr. Tessema and his colleagues to take a deeper dive into risk factors associated with pregnancies following a shorter interval. 

Two-thirds of women in the study conceived again within 6 months of having a miscarriage. Only a quarter of women who had an induced abortion were pregnant again within that same timeframe.

Using Norway’s national health registries, the researchers examined the outcomes of 49,058 births following a miscarriage and 23,707 births after an induced abortion between 2008 and 2016. The birth registry includes information on livebirths, stillbirths, miscarriages, and induced abortions, with detailed descriptions provided around how a miscarriage or abortion is identified. The study included only miscarriages reported through the health care system.

Expanding on other studies that have shown no adverse outcomes with those pregnancy intervals, Dr. Tessema and colleagues found that women who became pregnant shortly after a miscarriage or abortion were not at a higher risk for delivering preterm, having newborns that were small for gestational age (SGA) or large for gestational age (LGA), or developing preeclampsia or gestational diabetes.

Dr. Tessema and his colleagues found a slightly smaller percentage of women who conceived within 3 months, compared with those who became pregnant within 6-11 months after a miscarriage (8.6% to 10.1%). Women who conceived within 3 months of an induced abortion had a slightly, but statistically nonsignificant (P = .07), increased risk for SGA, compared with those who conceived between 6 and 11 months (11.5% to 10%).

No greater risk was shown for the other adverse outcomes – preterm births, LGA, preeclampsia, and GDM – for women who became pregnant within 6 months of an abortion or miscarriage.

The results should reassure women who want to get pregnant again soon after abortions or miscarriage, according to Scott Sullivan, MD, the director of high-risk ob.gyn. at Inova Health, Fairfax, Va.

Often, patients hear conflicting advice from doctors, friends, or medical associations about the best time to try for a baby following a miscarriage or abortion, in part because there are differences in various guidelines. Adding to the confusion is a lack of robust research and data on pregnancy loss, especially in the United States, he said.

“The entire topic of pregnancy loss is underappreciated by the public at large – how painful this is for people, how common it is,” Dr. Sullivan said in an interview. “We need research and resources on it. It’s not even tracked routinely in the United States like it is in other countries.”

Dr. Sullivan said he typically tells patients they can try to get pregnant again right away, following recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which say that patients can conceive as quickly as 2 weeks after an early pregnancy loss.

But he cautions that not all patients are mentally ready to make another attempt that soon, especially if they are still grieving their pregnancy loss.

“Even if you’re physically ready, a lot of people are not emotionally ready, because there’s a grieving process,” Dr. Sullivan said. “That’s very different for people.”
 

The WHO’s guidelines for developed countries

The WHO developed its guidelines based on research from lower income countries, including one study across Latin America that concluded pregnancy outcomes were worse for women who waited less than 6 months to conceive following an abortion or miscarriage.

Dr. Tessema noted his research is limited because it focused on Norway, a high-income country where women have guaranteed access to health care. Outcomes may be worse in developing countries where incomes are lower and health care inequality is greater, he said.

“The issue is when this international guideline was developed, most of the evidence is from low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Tessema said. “No studies were conducted from high income cities. We said: ‘This is a different context.’ These recommendations may not be appropriate for this setting.”

The study was supported with funding by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding program, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Raine Medical Research Foundation, and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. None of the authors report relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who conceived within 6 months of having a miscarriage or an induced abortion did not appear to be at an increased risk of a problematic pregnancy, a new study of more than 70,000 live births in Norway has found.

The findings, published online in PLOS Medicine, should help women and clinicians navigate conflicting guidance over how soon it is safe to conceive again after a pregnancy loss, said Gizachew Tessema, PhD, senior research fellow at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, and the lead author of the research.

“Especially after a miscarriage, women want to conceive again,” Dr. Tessema told this news organization. “Why should they wait if there’s no increased risk?”

On the international front, the World Health Organization advises patients not to attempt to become pregnant until a minimum of 6 months after an abortion or miscarriage. Those 2007 recommendations spurred Dr. Tessema and his colleagues to take a deeper dive into risk factors associated with pregnancies following a shorter interval. 

Two-thirds of women in the study conceived again within 6 months of having a miscarriage. Only a quarter of women who had an induced abortion were pregnant again within that same timeframe.

Using Norway’s national health registries, the researchers examined the outcomes of 49,058 births following a miscarriage and 23,707 births after an induced abortion between 2008 and 2016. The birth registry includes information on livebirths, stillbirths, miscarriages, and induced abortions, with detailed descriptions provided around how a miscarriage or abortion is identified. The study included only miscarriages reported through the health care system.

Expanding on other studies that have shown no adverse outcomes with those pregnancy intervals, Dr. Tessema and colleagues found that women who became pregnant shortly after a miscarriage or abortion were not at a higher risk for delivering preterm, having newborns that were small for gestational age (SGA) or large for gestational age (LGA), or developing preeclampsia or gestational diabetes.

Dr. Tessema and his colleagues found a slightly smaller percentage of women who conceived within 3 months, compared with those who became pregnant within 6-11 months after a miscarriage (8.6% to 10.1%). Women who conceived within 3 months of an induced abortion had a slightly, but statistically nonsignificant (P = .07), increased risk for SGA, compared with those who conceived between 6 and 11 months (11.5% to 10%).

No greater risk was shown for the other adverse outcomes – preterm births, LGA, preeclampsia, and GDM – for women who became pregnant within 6 months of an abortion or miscarriage.

The results should reassure women who want to get pregnant again soon after abortions or miscarriage, according to Scott Sullivan, MD, the director of high-risk ob.gyn. at Inova Health, Fairfax, Va.

Often, patients hear conflicting advice from doctors, friends, or medical associations about the best time to try for a baby following a miscarriage or abortion, in part because there are differences in various guidelines. Adding to the confusion is a lack of robust research and data on pregnancy loss, especially in the United States, he said.

“The entire topic of pregnancy loss is underappreciated by the public at large – how painful this is for people, how common it is,” Dr. Sullivan said in an interview. “We need research and resources on it. It’s not even tracked routinely in the United States like it is in other countries.”

Dr. Sullivan said he typically tells patients they can try to get pregnant again right away, following recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which say that patients can conceive as quickly as 2 weeks after an early pregnancy loss.

But he cautions that not all patients are mentally ready to make another attempt that soon, especially if they are still grieving their pregnancy loss.

“Even if you’re physically ready, a lot of people are not emotionally ready, because there’s a grieving process,” Dr. Sullivan said. “That’s very different for people.”
 

The WHO’s guidelines for developed countries

The WHO developed its guidelines based on research from lower income countries, including one study across Latin America that concluded pregnancy outcomes were worse for women who waited less than 6 months to conceive following an abortion or miscarriage.

Dr. Tessema noted his research is limited because it focused on Norway, a high-income country where women have guaranteed access to health care. Outcomes may be worse in developing countries where incomes are lower and health care inequality is greater, he said.

“The issue is when this international guideline was developed, most of the evidence is from low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Tessema said. “No studies were conducted from high income cities. We said: ‘This is a different context.’ These recommendations may not be appropriate for this setting.”

The study was supported with funding by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding program, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Raine Medical Research Foundation, and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. None of the authors report relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who conceived within 6 months of having a miscarriage or an induced abortion did not appear to be at an increased risk of a problematic pregnancy, a new study of more than 70,000 live births in Norway has found.

The findings, published online in PLOS Medicine, should help women and clinicians navigate conflicting guidance over how soon it is safe to conceive again after a pregnancy loss, said Gizachew Tessema, PhD, senior research fellow at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, and the lead author of the research.

“Especially after a miscarriage, women want to conceive again,” Dr. Tessema told this news organization. “Why should they wait if there’s no increased risk?”

On the international front, the World Health Organization advises patients not to attempt to become pregnant until a minimum of 6 months after an abortion or miscarriage. Those 2007 recommendations spurred Dr. Tessema and his colleagues to take a deeper dive into risk factors associated with pregnancies following a shorter interval. 

Two-thirds of women in the study conceived again within 6 months of having a miscarriage. Only a quarter of women who had an induced abortion were pregnant again within that same timeframe.

Using Norway’s national health registries, the researchers examined the outcomes of 49,058 births following a miscarriage and 23,707 births after an induced abortion between 2008 and 2016. The birth registry includes information on livebirths, stillbirths, miscarriages, and induced abortions, with detailed descriptions provided around how a miscarriage or abortion is identified. The study included only miscarriages reported through the health care system.

Expanding on other studies that have shown no adverse outcomes with those pregnancy intervals, Dr. Tessema and colleagues found that women who became pregnant shortly after a miscarriage or abortion were not at a higher risk for delivering preterm, having newborns that were small for gestational age (SGA) or large for gestational age (LGA), or developing preeclampsia or gestational diabetes.

Dr. Tessema and his colleagues found a slightly smaller percentage of women who conceived within 3 months, compared with those who became pregnant within 6-11 months after a miscarriage (8.6% to 10.1%). Women who conceived within 3 months of an induced abortion had a slightly, but statistically nonsignificant (P = .07), increased risk for SGA, compared with those who conceived between 6 and 11 months (11.5% to 10%).

No greater risk was shown for the other adverse outcomes – preterm births, LGA, preeclampsia, and GDM – for women who became pregnant within 6 months of an abortion or miscarriage.

The results should reassure women who want to get pregnant again soon after abortions or miscarriage, according to Scott Sullivan, MD, the director of high-risk ob.gyn. at Inova Health, Fairfax, Va.

Often, patients hear conflicting advice from doctors, friends, or medical associations about the best time to try for a baby following a miscarriage or abortion, in part because there are differences in various guidelines. Adding to the confusion is a lack of robust research and data on pregnancy loss, especially in the United States, he said.

“The entire topic of pregnancy loss is underappreciated by the public at large – how painful this is for people, how common it is,” Dr. Sullivan said in an interview. “We need research and resources on it. It’s not even tracked routinely in the United States like it is in other countries.”

Dr. Sullivan said he typically tells patients they can try to get pregnant again right away, following recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which say that patients can conceive as quickly as 2 weeks after an early pregnancy loss.

But he cautions that not all patients are mentally ready to make another attempt that soon, especially if they are still grieving their pregnancy loss.

“Even if you’re physically ready, a lot of people are not emotionally ready, because there’s a grieving process,” Dr. Sullivan said. “That’s very different for people.”
 

The WHO’s guidelines for developed countries

The WHO developed its guidelines based on research from lower income countries, including one study across Latin America that concluded pregnancy outcomes were worse for women who waited less than 6 months to conceive following an abortion or miscarriage.

Dr. Tessema noted his research is limited because it focused on Norway, a high-income country where women have guaranteed access to health care. Outcomes may be worse in developing countries where incomes are lower and health care inequality is greater, he said.

“The issue is when this international guideline was developed, most of the evidence is from low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Tessema said. “No studies were conducted from high income cities. We said: ‘This is a different context.’ These recommendations may not be appropriate for this setting.”

The study was supported with funding by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding program, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Raine Medical Research Foundation, and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. None of the authors report relevant financial relationships.

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