User login
Anesthesiologist arrested, implicated in death of colleague
at Baylor Scott & White Surgicare, a North Dallas surgical center. Raynaldo Rivera Ortiz Jr., MD, 59, is accused of injecting nerve-blocking and bronchodilating drugs into patient IV bags, resulting in at least one death and multiple cardiac emergencies.
In June, an anesthesiologist identified by Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA as Melanie Kaspar, MD, a colleague of Dr. Ortiz’s at the outpatient center, was ill and treated herself for dehydration using an IV bag of saline she had taken home from work. She died immediately after injecting the contents of the bag. According to the autopsy report, she died from a lethal dose of bupivacaine, a nerve-blocking agent often used during the administration of anesthesia. According to WFAA, Dr. Kaspar’s death was initially ruled accidental, but the Dallas County Medical Examiner has since reopened the case.
Then in August, an 18-year-old male patient, identified in court documents as J.A., experienced a cardiac emergency during a scheduled surgery at the clinic. The teen, who according to local press coverage was undergoing nose surgery after a dirt bike accident, was transferred to a local ICU. A chemical analysis of the fluid from the saline bag that was used during his surgery found epinephrine (a stimulant that could have caused his symptoms), bupivacaine, and lidocaine.
According to court documents, an investigation by the surgical center identified about 10 additional unexpected cardiac emergencies that occurred during what should have been unremarkable surgeries, an exceptionally high rate of complications, suggesting a pattern of intentional adulteration of IV bags. These surgeries were performed between May and August.
In addition, the complaint alleges that none of the cardiac incidents occurred during Dr. Ortiz’s surgeries; however, all of the incidents occurred around the time Dr. Ortiz performed services at the facility, and no incidents occurred while he was on vacation. The incidents began 2 days after Dr. Ortiz had been notified that he was the subject of a disciplinary inquiry stemming from an incident in which he allegedly “deviated from the standard of care” during an anesthesia procedure when a patient experienced a medical emergency, according to federal officials.
The complaint also alleges that Dr. Ortiz had a history of disciplinary actions against him, including at the facility, and he complained that the center was trying to “crucify” him.
Surveillance video from the hallway of the center’s operating room shows Dr. Ortiz placing IV bags in the stainless-steel bag warmer shortly before other doctors’ patients experienced cardiac emergencies, according to the complaint. In the description of one instance captured on video, Dr. Ortiz was observed walking quickly from an operating room to the bag warmer, placing a single IV bag inside, visually scanning the empty hallway, and quickly walking away. Just over an hour later, according to the complaint, a 56-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure.
The complaint alleges that in another instance, Dr. Ortiz was observed exiting his operating room carrying an IV bag concealed in what appeared to be a paper folder, swapping the bag with another bag from the warmer, and walking away. Roughly 30 minutes later, a 54-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure.
“Our complaint alleges this defendant surreptitiously injected heart-stopping drugs into patient IV bags, decimating the Hippocratic Oath,” said Chad E. Meacham, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. “A single incident of seemingly intentional patient harm would be disconcerting; multiple incidents are truly disturbing. At this point, however, we believe that the problem is limited to one individual, who is currently behind bars. We will work tirelessly to hold him accountable.”
Dr. Ortiz is charged with tampering with a consumer product and with intentionally adulterating drugs. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of life in prison. Dr. Ortiz will make his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Renee Toliver in Dallas Sept. 16.
On Sept. 9, the Texas Medical Board suspended Dr. Ortiz’s license in connection with this investigation, noting that the panel found “an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare” and that Dr. Ortiz’s “continuation in the practice of medicine poses a continuing threat to public welfare.”
“It is astounding, stunning [for the victims] to think that anyone did this intentionally,” said Bruce W. Steckler, an attorney for some of the victims, in an interview with WFAA.
Baylor Scott & White Health, which operates the surgical center, said in a statement that the North Dallas facility will remain closed as the investigation continues.
“We actively assisted authorities in their investigation and will continue to do so. We also remain focused on communicating with patients,” the health system said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
at Baylor Scott & White Surgicare, a North Dallas surgical center. Raynaldo Rivera Ortiz Jr., MD, 59, is accused of injecting nerve-blocking and bronchodilating drugs into patient IV bags, resulting in at least one death and multiple cardiac emergencies.
In June, an anesthesiologist identified by Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA as Melanie Kaspar, MD, a colleague of Dr. Ortiz’s at the outpatient center, was ill and treated herself for dehydration using an IV bag of saline she had taken home from work. She died immediately after injecting the contents of the bag. According to the autopsy report, she died from a lethal dose of bupivacaine, a nerve-blocking agent often used during the administration of anesthesia. According to WFAA, Dr. Kaspar’s death was initially ruled accidental, but the Dallas County Medical Examiner has since reopened the case.
Then in August, an 18-year-old male patient, identified in court documents as J.A., experienced a cardiac emergency during a scheduled surgery at the clinic. The teen, who according to local press coverage was undergoing nose surgery after a dirt bike accident, was transferred to a local ICU. A chemical analysis of the fluid from the saline bag that was used during his surgery found epinephrine (a stimulant that could have caused his symptoms), bupivacaine, and lidocaine.
According to court documents, an investigation by the surgical center identified about 10 additional unexpected cardiac emergencies that occurred during what should have been unremarkable surgeries, an exceptionally high rate of complications, suggesting a pattern of intentional adulteration of IV bags. These surgeries were performed between May and August.
In addition, the complaint alleges that none of the cardiac incidents occurred during Dr. Ortiz’s surgeries; however, all of the incidents occurred around the time Dr. Ortiz performed services at the facility, and no incidents occurred while he was on vacation. The incidents began 2 days after Dr. Ortiz had been notified that he was the subject of a disciplinary inquiry stemming from an incident in which he allegedly “deviated from the standard of care” during an anesthesia procedure when a patient experienced a medical emergency, according to federal officials.
The complaint also alleges that Dr. Ortiz had a history of disciplinary actions against him, including at the facility, and he complained that the center was trying to “crucify” him.
Surveillance video from the hallway of the center’s operating room shows Dr. Ortiz placing IV bags in the stainless-steel bag warmer shortly before other doctors’ patients experienced cardiac emergencies, according to the complaint. In the description of one instance captured on video, Dr. Ortiz was observed walking quickly from an operating room to the bag warmer, placing a single IV bag inside, visually scanning the empty hallway, and quickly walking away. Just over an hour later, according to the complaint, a 56-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure.
The complaint alleges that in another instance, Dr. Ortiz was observed exiting his operating room carrying an IV bag concealed in what appeared to be a paper folder, swapping the bag with another bag from the warmer, and walking away. Roughly 30 minutes later, a 54-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure.
“Our complaint alleges this defendant surreptitiously injected heart-stopping drugs into patient IV bags, decimating the Hippocratic Oath,” said Chad E. Meacham, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. “A single incident of seemingly intentional patient harm would be disconcerting; multiple incidents are truly disturbing. At this point, however, we believe that the problem is limited to one individual, who is currently behind bars. We will work tirelessly to hold him accountable.”
Dr. Ortiz is charged with tampering with a consumer product and with intentionally adulterating drugs. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of life in prison. Dr. Ortiz will make his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Renee Toliver in Dallas Sept. 16.
On Sept. 9, the Texas Medical Board suspended Dr. Ortiz’s license in connection with this investigation, noting that the panel found “an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare” and that Dr. Ortiz’s “continuation in the practice of medicine poses a continuing threat to public welfare.”
“It is astounding, stunning [for the victims] to think that anyone did this intentionally,” said Bruce W. Steckler, an attorney for some of the victims, in an interview with WFAA.
Baylor Scott & White Health, which operates the surgical center, said in a statement that the North Dallas facility will remain closed as the investigation continues.
“We actively assisted authorities in their investigation and will continue to do so. We also remain focused on communicating with patients,” the health system said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
at Baylor Scott & White Surgicare, a North Dallas surgical center. Raynaldo Rivera Ortiz Jr., MD, 59, is accused of injecting nerve-blocking and bronchodilating drugs into patient IV bags, resulting in at least one death and multiple cardiac emergencies.
In June, an anesthesiologist identified by Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA as Melanie Kaspar, MD, a colleague of Dr. Ortiz’s at the outpatient center, was ill and treated herself for dehydration using an IV bag of saline she had taken home from work. She died immediately after injecting the contents of the bag. According to the autopsy report, she died from a lethal dose of bupivacaine, a nerve-blocking agent often used during the administration of anesthesia. According to WFAA, Dr. Kaspar’s death was initially ruled accidental, but the Dallas County Medical Examiner has since reopened the case.
Then in August, an 18-year-old male patient, identified in court documents as J.A., experienced a cardiac emergency during a scheduled surgery at the clinic. The teen, who according to local press coverage was undergoing nose surgery after a dirt bike accident, was transferred to a local ICU. A chemical analysis of the fluid from the saline bag that was used during his surgery found epinephrine (a stimulant that could have caused his symptoms), bupivacaine, and lidocaine.
According to court documents, an investigation by the surgical center identified about 10 additional unexpected cardiac emergencies that occurred during what should have been unremarkable surgeries, an exceptionally high rate of complications, suggesting a pattern of intentional adulteration of IV bags. These surgeries were performed between May and August.
In addition, the complaint alleges that none of the cardiac incidents occurred during Dr. Ortiz’s surgeries; however, all of the incidents occurred around the time Dr. Ortiz performed services at the facility, and no incidents occurred while he was on vacation. The incidents began 2 days after Dr. Ortiz had been notified that he was the subject of a disciplinary inquiry stemming from an incident in which he allegedly “deviated from the standard of care” during an anesthesia procedure when a patient experienced a medical emergency, according to federal officials.
The complaint also alleges that Dr. Ortiz had a history of disciplinary actions against him, including at the facility, and he complained that the center was trying to “crucify” him.
Surveillance video from the hallway of the center’s operating room shows Dr. Ortiz placing IV bags in the stainless-steel bag warmer shortly before other doctors’ patients experienced cardiac emergencies, according to the complaint. In the description of one instance captured on video, Dr. Ortiz was observed walking quickly from an operating room to the bag warmer, placing a single IV bag inside, visually scanning the empty hallway, and quickly walking away. Just over an hour later, according to the complaint, a 56-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure.
The complaint alleges that in another instance, Dr. Ortiz was observed exiting his operating room carrying an IV bag concealed in what appeared to be a paper folder, swapping the bag with another bag from the warmer, and walking away. Roughly 30 minutes later, a 54-year-old woman suffered a cardiac emergency during a scheduled cosmetic surgery after a bag from the warmer was used during her procedure.
“Our complaint alleges this defendant surreptitiously injected heart-stopping drugs into patient IV bags, decimating the Hippocratic Oath,” said Chad E. Meacham, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. “A single incident of seemingly intentional patient harm would be disconcerting; multiple incidents are truly disturbing. At this point, however, we believe that the problem is limited to one individual, who is currently behind bars. We will work tirelessly to hold him accountable.”
Dr. Ortiz is charged with tampering with a consumer product and with intentionally adulterating drugs. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of life in prison. Dr. Ortiz will make his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Renee Toliver in Dallas Sept. 16.
On Sept. 9, the Texas Medical Board suspended Dr. Ortiz’s license in connection with this investigation, noting that the panel found “an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare” and that Dr. Ortiz’s “continuation in the practice of medicine poses a continuing threat to public welfare.”
“It is astounding, stunning [for the victims] to think that anyone did this intentionally,” said Bruce W. Steckler, an attorney for some of the victims, in an interview with WFAA.
Baylor Scott & White Health, which operates the surgical center, said in a statement that the North Dallas facility will remain closed as the investigation continues.
“We actively assisted authorities in their investigation and will continue to do so. We also remain focused on communicating with patients,” the health system said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Novel study offers clues to sex bias in lupus
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or lupus, shows a marked sex bias, affecting about nine females for every one male, according to Susan Kovats, PhD, who studies sex differences in immunity at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. This characteristic of lupus suggests that hormones are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. It also suggests, Dr. Kovats said, that the X chromosome might play a role.
Though studies since the 1970s have indicated a significant role for hormones, the issue is still complex and not well understood, and relatively little research has been done on the molecular mechanisms that might be responsible. This may be because of difficulties with influencing the immune system in vitro, said George A. Robinson, PhD, of University College London’s Centre for Rheumatology.
But Dr. Robinson and his team found a unique way of investigating the role of sex chromosomes and hormones in the inflammatory profiles across subjects of different sex, gender, age, and disease status. In research published online in The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Robinson and his team looked at immune cells taken from both cisgender men and women and transgender men and women, and thus were able to “get a more physiological view of what sex hormones are doing to the immune system,” he said.
Dr. Kovats agreed that it was a useful approach. “The transgender people provided an opportunity to effectively separate sex hormone levels from chromosome content,” she said in an interview.
Methods and findings
Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were taken from cisgender individuals with and without juvenile-onset lupus and assessed for 28 immune-cell subsets, including different T-cell, B-cell, and monotype subsets. Subjects included 39 postpubertal cisgender men and women (17 men and 22 women) who did not have juvenile-onset lupus, and 35 postpubertal cisgender men and women (12 men and 23 women) who did have juvenile onset lupus. All were aged 16-25 years. The transgender group included five transgender men and five transgender women (aged 18-19) who were undergoing gender-affirming sex hormone treatment.
The analysis found that one of the key differences between young postpubertal cisgender men and age-matched cisgender women was that the men had significantly elevated frequencies of regulatory T cells (T-reg cells), and the T-reg cells from young cisgender men had greater suppressive capacity in vitro than did those from cisgender women. In addition, RNA sequencing data from isolated T-reg cells showed the transcriptomic signature of the cisgender men’s T-regs were significantly enriched for genes in the P13K-AKT signaling pathway. The frequency of T-reg cells was not influenced by sex hormones, but their transcriptomic profile was affected.
“These results are beginning to give us an indication of which genes might be differentially regulated by sex hormones and how these are associated with autoimmunity,” Dr. Robinson said. “We’ve also found that, depending on whether you’re a cisgender man or woman, you may have a different pathogenic process to developing lupus. It’s not necessarily that one mechanism drives the disease across both sexes.”
New approaches, better insights
Dr. Kovats was particularly impressed by the methods of this study. “It was a natural study, the kind of thing we can usually do only in mice,” she said.
“One problem with studies on the effects of hormones in disease is that historically researchers have not paid that much attention to the actual hormone levels in the humans they studied. They might look at 100 women and 100 men, roughly between the ages of 20 and 50. We’re starting to see more, but there aren’t a lot of studies correlating numbers of cells in blood with actual hormone levels in the person. And as we know, just because someone’s a certain age doesn’t mean that they have a textbook hormone level. Early menopause, birth-control pills, many things can affect those levels.”
The researchers hope that these findings will shed light on the mechanisms that create sexual bias in autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus, as well as help researchers to better understand the innate and adaptive immunological differences between men and women. It could also be useful in the clinical setting, Dr. Robinson said. Because of the extreme sex bias in lupus, doctors see far more women with the illness than men. When they do see men with lupus, they need to be able to consider how the patient’s sex affects the development and course of the disease. “I think that people need to start looking at patients as clinically different, depending on their sex and gender,” he said. Information like that analyzed in this study could help with that. This could be especially important because as Dr. Kovats pointed out, although men get lupus far less often than women, when they do have it, they tend to have more severe disease.
Help from machines
This study was groundbreaking in another area as well. The researchers used machine learning to analyze the data. “We’ve started working a lot more with these analysis methods to try to answer as much as we can with these smaller data sets,” Dr. Robinson said. “Rather than the conventional analysis that we would typically perform, we’re able to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to try and learn from the data and increase the numbers that we’re working with by using a training data set. This allows us to interrogate the data with a lot more precision.”
The authors declared no competing interests.
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or lupus, shows a marked sex bias, affecting about nine females for every one male, according to Susan Kovats, PhD, who studies sex differences in immunity at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. This characteristic of lupus suggests that hormones are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. It also suggests, Dr. Kovats said, that the X chromosome might play a role.
Though studies since the 1970s have indicated a significant role for hormones, the issue is still complex and not well understood, and relatively little research has been done on the molecular mechanisms that might be responsible. This may be because of difficulties with influencing the immune system in vitro, said George A. Robinson, PhD, of University College London’s Centre for Rheumatology.
But Dr. Robinson and his team found a unique way of investigating the role of sex chromosomes and hormones in the inflammatory profiles across subjects of different sex, gender, age, and disease status. In research published online in The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Robinson and his team looked at immune cells taken from both cisgender men and women and transgender men and women, and thus were able to “get a more physiological view of what sex hormones are doing to the immune system,” he said.
Dr. Kovats agreed that it was a useful approach. “The transgender people provided an opportunity to effectively separate sex hormone levels from chromosome content,” she said in an interview.
Methods and findings
Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were taken from cisgender individuals with and without juvenile-onset lupus and assessed for 28 immune-cell subsets, including different T-cell, B-cell, and monotype subsets. Subjects included 39 postpubertal cisgender men and women (17 men and 22 women) who did not have juvenile-onset lupus, and 35 postpubertal cisgender men and women (12 men and 23 women) who did have juvenile onset lupus. All were aged 16-25 years. The transgender group included five transgender men and five transgender women (aged 18-19) who were undergoing gender-affirming sex hormone treatment.
The analysis found that one of the key differences between young postpubertal cisgender men and age-matched cisgender women was that the men had significantly elevated frequencies of regulatory T cells (T-reg cells), and the T-reg cells from young cisgender men had greater suppressive capacity in vitro than did those from cisgender women. In addition, RNA sequencing data from isolated T-reg cells showed the transcriptomic signature of the cisgender men’s T-regs were significantly enriched for genes in the P13K-AKT signaling pathway. The frequency of T-reg cells was not influenced by sex hormones, but their transcriptomic profile was affected.
“These results are beginning to give us an indication of which genes might be differentially regulated by sex hormones and how these are associated with autoimmunity,” Dr. Robinson said. “We’ve also found that, depending on whether you’re a cisgender man or woman, you may have a different pathogenic process to developing lupus. It’s not necessarily that one mechanism drives the disease across both sexes.”
New approaches, better insights
Dr. Kovats was particularly impressed by the methods of this study. “It was a natural study, the kind of thing we can usually do only in mice,” she said.
“One problem with studies on the effects of hormones in disease is that historically researchers have not paid that much attention to the actual hormone levels in the humans they studied. They might look at 100 women and 100 men, roughly between the ages of 20 and 50. We’re starting to see more, but there aren’t a lot of studies correlating numbers of cells in blood with actual hormone levels in the person. And as we know, just because someone’s a certain age doesn’t mean that they have a textbook hormone level. Early menopause, birth-control pills, many things can affect those levels.”
The researchers hope that these findings will shed light on the mechanisms that create sexual bias in autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus, as well as help researchers to better understand the innate and adaptive immunological differences between men and women. It could also be useful in the clinical setting, Dr. Robinson said. Because of the extreme sex bias in lupus, doctors see far more women with the illness than men. When they do see men with lupus, they need to be able to consider how the patient’s sex affects the development and course of the disease. “I think that people need to start looking at patients as clinically different, depending on their sex and gender,” he said. Information like that analyzed in this study could help with that. This could be especially important because as Dr. Kovats pointed out, although men get lupus far less often than women, when they do have it, they tend to have more severe disease.
Help from machines
This study was groundbreaking in another area as well. The researchers used machine learning to analyze the data. “We’ve started working a lot more with these analysis methods to try to answer as much as we can with these smaller data sets,” Dr. Robinson said. “Rather than the conventional analysis that we would typically perform, we’re able to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to try and learn from the data and increase the numbers that we’re working with by using a training data set. This allows us to interrogate the data with a lot more precision.”
The authors declared no competing interests.
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or lupus, shows a marked sex bias, affecting about nine females for every one male, according to Susan Kovats, PhD, who studies sex differences in immunity at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. This characteristic of lupus suggests that hormones are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. It also suggests, Dr. Kovats said, that the X chromosome might play a role.
Though studies since the 1970s have indicated a significant role for hormones, the issue is still complex and not well understood, and relatively little research has been done on the molecular mechanisms that might be responsible. This may be because of difficulties with influencing the immune system in vitro, said George A. Robinson, PhD, of University College London’s Centre for Rheumatology.
But Dr. Robinson and his team found a unique way of investigating the role of sex chromosomes and hormones in the inflammatory profiles across subjects of different sex, gender, age, and disease status. In research published online in The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Robinson and his team looked at immune cells taken from both cisgender men and women and transgender men and women, and thus were able to “get a more physiological view of what sex hormones are doing to the immune system,” he said.
Dr. Kovats agreed that it was a useful approach. “The transgender people provided an opportunity to effectively separate sex hormone levels from chromosome content,” she said in an interview.
Methods and findings
Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were taken from cisgender individuals with and without juvenile-onset lupus and assessed for 28 immune-cell subsets, including different T-cell, B-cell, and monotype subsets. Subjects included 39 postpubertal cisgender men and women (17 men and 22 women) who did not have juvenile-onset lupus, and 35 postpubertal cisgender men and women (12 men and 23 women) who did have juvenile onset lupus. All were aged 16-25 years. The transgender group included five transgender men and five transgender women (aged 18-19) who were undergoing gender-affirming sex hormone treatment.
The analysis found that one of the key differences between young postpubertal cisgender men and age-matched cisgender women was that the men had significantly elevated frequencies of regulatory T cells (T-reg cells), and the T-reg cells from young cisgender men had greater suppressive capacity in vitro than did those from cisgender women. In addition, RNA sequencing data from isolated T-reg cells showed the transcriptomic signature of the cisgender men’s T-regs were significantly enriched for genes in the P13K-AKT signaling pathway. The frequency of T-reg cells was not influenced by sex hormones, but their transcriptomic profile was affected.
“These results are beginning to give us an indication of which genes might be differentially regulated by sex hormones and how these are associated with autoimmunity,” Dr. Robinson said. “We’ve also found that, depending on whether you’re a cisgender man or woman, you may have a different pathogenic process to developing lupus. It’s not necessarily that one mechanism drives the disease across both sexes.”
New approaches, better insights
Dr. Kovats was particularly impressed by the methods of this study. “It was a natural study, the kind of thing we can usually do only in mice,” she said.
“One problem with studies on the effects of hormones in disease is that historically researchers have not paid that much attention to the actual hormone levels in the humans they studied. They might look at 100 women and 100 men, roughly between the ages of 20 and 50. We’re starting to see more, but there aren’t a lot of studies correlating numbers of cells in blood with actual hormone levels in the person. And as we know, just because someone’s a certain age doesn’t mean that they have a textbook hormone level. Early menopause, birth-control pills, many things can affect those levels.”
The researchers hope that these findings will shed light on the mechanisms that create sexual bias in autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus, as well as help researchers to better understand the innate and adaptive immunological differences between men and women. It could also be useful in the clinical setting, Dr. Robinson said. Because of the extreme sex bias in lupus, doctors see far more women with the illness than men. When they do see men with lupus, they need to be able to consider how the patient’s sex affects the development and course of the disease. “I think that people need to start looking at patients as clinically different, depending on their sex and gender,” he said. Information like that analyzed in this study could help with that. This could be especially important because as Dr. Kovats pointed out, although men get lupus far less often than women, when they do have it, they tend to have more severe disease.
Help from machines
This study was groundbreaking in another area as well. The researchers used machine learning to analyze the data. “We’ve started working a lot more with these analysis methods to try to answer as much as we can with these smaller data sets,” Dr. Robinson said. “Rather than the conventional analysis that we would typically perform, we’re able to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to try and learn from the data and increase the numbers that we’re working with by using a training data set. This allows us to interrogate the data with a lot more precision.”
The authors declared no competing interests.
FROM THE LANCET RHEUMATOLOGY
Physicians’ bad behavior seen at work, online by colleagues: Survey
“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”
But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.
For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.
Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.
“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
Bullying and harassment top bad behavior
When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.
Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.
Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).
Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
Speaking up
Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.
Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.
Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.
“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
Off the job
Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.
Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.
The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.
When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”
Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”
Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”
As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”
But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.
For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.
Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.
“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
Bullying and harassment top bad behavior
When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.
Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.
Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).
Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
Speaking up
Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.
Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.
Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.
“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
Off the job
Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.
Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.
The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.
When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”
Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”
Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”
As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”
But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.
For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.
Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.
“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
Bullying and harassment top bad behavior
When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.
Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.
Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).
Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
Speaking up
Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.
Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.
Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.
“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
Off the job
Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.
Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.
The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.
When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”
Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”
Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”
As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TNF inhibitor use for RA shows beneficial effect in pregnancy
Women with well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis who used a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor during pregnancy gave birth to infants with higher birth weight than did other patients, without an increased risk of adverse outcomes, according to findings from a Dutch prospective cohort study published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
The study involved 188 patients drawn from the ongoing Preconceptional Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, which followed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases before and during pregnancy. Women enrolled in PreCARA were closely monitored and treated with a therapeutic approach that aimed to achieve minimal disease activity, which included the use of TNF inhibitors.
Much research on TNF inhibitors during pregnancy has been limited to the first trimester and focused primarily on congenital malformations. In addition, most previous studies evaluating TNF inhibitors during pregnancy involved patients with different underlying diseases, making it difficult to interpret the results.
Hieronymus T. W. Smeele, MD, and colleagues at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, evaluated participants every 3 months before pregnancy; then again in the first, second, and third trimesters; and at 6, 12, and 26 weeks post partum. At these visits, in addition to undergoing an examination of their joints, patients completed questionnaires and gave blood samples. Disease activity was determined using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Twin births and diagnoses other than RA were excluded.
Bigger babies
The study found that use of TNF inhibitors during pregnancy (n = 92 women) did not increase the risk of birth defects or emergency cesarean sections. While RA is typically associated with small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth weights, TNF inhibitors were associated with a significant increase in birth weight and fewer infants born SGA, even when the comparison was adjusted for confounders, such as disease activity. At the same time, TNF inhibitors were not associated with high birth weight or with infants who were large for gestational age (LGA).
The results showed that the effects were greatest when TNF inhibitors were used in the third trimester. However, teasing out the effects based on trimester is difficult because participants who used TNF inhibitors during the third trimester were likely to use them in the first and second trimester as well. The study’s authors pointed out that these results need to be replicated.
“The immune system is not only important in the pathogenesis of RA,” the study’s authors wrote, “but also for ensuring and maintaining a normal pregnancy.” They pointed out that many adverse outcomes of pregnancy that are thought to arise from inadequate development of the placenta, such as intrauterine growth restriction, SGA, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, can involve an increase in proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF. “It is tempting to speculate that treatment with [TNF inhibitors] during pregnancy promotes placentation and thereby fetal growth and birth weight by changing the balance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and by increasing the number and function of [regulatory T cells].” They also hypothesize that treatment with TNF inhibitors induces epigenetic changes in the fetus, which positively influence fetal growth.
Welcomed data
This is a well-done, interesting study that will add to the still-slim body of research on pregnancy in rheumatic diseases, Kevin Byram, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology and immunology and associate director of the rheumatology training program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.
“Historically, pregnant women have been excluded from clinical trials, not just in rheumatoid arthritis, but in other rheumatic diseases, so we don’t have a lot of great data,” he said, adding that the more interesting part of the study was that it showed there was no increased risk of adverse outcomes. “I’m not sure what to make of the increased birth weight. It will be interesting to see if the hypothesis that there might be a role for this molecule in preventing low birth weight goes anywhere.”
The work was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. PreCARA is an investigator-initiated study that was financially supported by UCB. The authors declared no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women with well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis who used a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor during pregnancy gave birth to infants with higher birth weight than did other patients, without an increased risk of adverse outcomes, according to findings from a Dutch prospective cohort study published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
The study involved 188 patients drawn from the ongoing Preconceptional Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, which followed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases before and during pregnancy. Women enrolled in PreCARA were closely monitored and treated with a therapeutic approach that aimed to achieve minimal disease activity, which included the use of TNF inhibitors.
Much research on TNF inhibitors during pregnancy has been limited to the first trimester and focused primarily on congenital malformations. In addition, most previous studies evaluating TNF inhibitors during pregnancy involved patients with different underlying diseases, making it difficult to interpret the results.
Hieronymus T. W. Smeele, MD, and colleagues at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, evaluated participants every 3 months before pregnancy; then again in the first, second, and third trimesters; and at 6, 12, and 26 weeks post partum. At these visits, in addition to undergoing an examination of their joints, patients completed questionnaires and gave blood samples. Disease activity was determined using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Twin births and diagnoses other than RA were excluded.
Bigger babies
The study found that use of TNF inhibitors during pregnancy (n = 92 women) did not increase the risk of birth defects or emergency cesarean sections. While RA is typically associated with small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth weights, TNF inhibitors were associated with a significant increase in birth weight and fewer infants born SGA, even when the comparison was adjusted for confounders, such as disease activity. At the same time, TNF inhibitors were not associated with high birth weight or with infants who were large for gestational age (LGA).
The results showed that the effects were greatest when TNF inhibitors were used in the third trimester. However, teasing out the effects based on trimester is difficult because participants who used TNF inhibitors during the third trimester were likely to use them in the first and second trimester as well. The study’s authors pointed out that these results need to be replicated.
“The immune system is not only important in the pathogenesis of RA,” the study’s authors wrote, “but also for ensuring and maintaining a normal pregnancy.” They pointed out that many adverse outcomes of pregnancy that are thought to arise from inadequate development of the placenta, such as intrauterine growth restriction, SGA, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, can involve an increase in proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF. “It is tempting to speculate that treatment with [TNF inhibitors] during pregnancy promotes placentation and thereby fetal growth and birth weight by changing the balance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and by increasing the number and function of [regulatory T cells].” They also hypothesize that treatment with TNF inhibitors induces epigenetic changes in the fetus, which positively influence fetal growth.
Welcomed data
This is a well-done, interesting study that will add to the still-slim body of research on pregnancy in rheumatic diseases, Kevin Byram, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology and immunology and associate director of the rheumatology training program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.
“Historically, pregnant women have been excluded from clinical trials, not just in rheumatoid arthritis, but in other rheumatic diseases, so we don’t have a lot of great data,” he said, adding that the more interesting part of the study was that it showed there was no increased risk of adverse outcomes. “I’m not sure what to make of the increased birth weight. It will be interesting to see if the hypothesis that there might be a role for this molecule in preventing low birth weight goes anywhere.”
The work was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. PreCARA is an investigator-initiated study that was financially supported by UCB. The authors declared no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women with well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis who used a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor during pregnancy gave birth to infants with higher birth weight than did other patients, without an increased risk of adverse outcomes, according to findings from a Dutch prospective cohort study published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
The study involved 188 patients drawn from the ongoing Preconceptional Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, which followed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases before and during pregnancy. Women enrolled in PreCARA were closely monitored and treated with a therapeutic approach that aimed to achieve minimal disease activity, which included the use of TNF inhibitors.
Much research on TNF inhibitors during pregnancy has been limited to the first trimester and focused primarily on congenital malformations. In addition, most previous studies evaluating TNF inhibitors during pregnancy involved patients with different underlying diseases, making it difficult to interpret the results.
Hieronymus T. W. Smeele, MD, and colleagues at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, evaluated participants every 3 months before pregnancy; then again in the first, second, and third trimesters; and at 6, 12, and 26 weeks post partum. At these visits, in addition to undergoing an examination of their joints, patients completed questionnaires and gave blood samples. Disease activity was determined using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Twin births and diagnoses other than RA were excluded.
Bigger babies
The study found that use of TNF inhibitors during pregnancy (n = 92 women) did not increase the risk of birth defects or emergency cesarean sections. While RA is typically associated with small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth weights, TNF inhibitors were associated with a significant increase in birth weight and fewer infants born SGA, even when the comparison was adjusted for confounders, such as disease activity. At the same time, TNF inhibitors were not associated with high birth weight or with infants who were large for gestational age (LGA).
The results showed that the effects were greatest when TNF inhibitors were used in the third trimester. However, teasing out the effects based on trimester is difficult because participants who used TNF inhibitors during the third trimester were likely to use them in the first and second trimester as well. The study’s authors pointed out that these results need to be replicated.
“The immune system is not only important in the pathogenesis of RA,” the study’s authors wrote, “but also for ensuring and maintaining a normal pregnancy.” They pointed out that many adverse outcomes of pregnancy that are thought to arise from inadequate development of the placenta, such as intrauterine growth restriction, SGA, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, can involve an increase in proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF. “It is tempting to speculate that treatment with [TNF inhibitors] during pregnancy promotes placentation and thereby fetal growth and birth weight by changing the balance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and by increasing the number and function of [regulatory T cells].” They also hypothesize that treatment with TNF inhibitors induces epigenetic changes in the fetus, which positively influence fetal growth.
Welcomed data
This is a well-done, interesting study that will add to the still-slim body of research on pregnancy in rheumatic diseases, Kevin Byram, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology and immunology and associate director of the rheumatology training program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.
“Historically, pregnant women have been excluded from clinical trials, not just in rheumatoid arthritis, but in other rheumatic diseases, so we don’t have a lot of great data,” he said, adding that the more interesting part of the study was that it showed there was no increased risk of adverse outcomes. “I’m not sure what to make of the increased birth weight. It will be interesting to see if the hypothesis that there might be a role for this molecule in preventing low birth weight goes anywhere.”
The work was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. PreCARA is an investigator-initiated study that was financially supported by UCB. The authors declared no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
One thing is certain, says survey: Doctors hate taxes
For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.
Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)
The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)
According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”
Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
Filing taxes as painful as paying them
According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.
When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”
Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”
About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.
Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.
Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.
Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
Gimme a break
Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).
About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.
The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.
While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”
When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”
Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.
Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)
The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)
According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”
Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
Filing taxes as painful as paying them
According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.
When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”
Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”
About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.
Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.
Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.
Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
Gimme a break
Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).
About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.
The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.
While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”
When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”
Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.
Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)
The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)
According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”
Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
Filing taxes as painful as paying them
According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.
When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”
Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”
About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.
Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.
Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.
Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
Gimme a break
Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).
About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.
The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.
While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”
When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”
Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiologists’ incomes bounce back from pandemic: Survey
The financial struggles created by the pandemic have eased somewhat, but physicians are still facing an array of challenges, including increased workloads and longer hours. All in all, however, things seem to be looking up.
More than 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties shared information about their incomes and other aspects of their careers in a survey conducted by Medscape. The responses showed a trend back to something like normal after the initial blow of the COVID-19 pandemic.
As the profession began to recover from the pandemic, cardiologists reported that their incomes increased in 2021, reaching an average of $490,000 for the year, up from $459,000 the previous year. This was in keeping with physicians in other specialties. “Compensation for most physicians is trending back up, as demands for physicians accelerates,” said James Taylor, group president and chief operating officer of AMN Healthcare’s Physician & Leadership Solutions Division. “The market for physicians has done a complete 180 over just 7 or 8 months.” And though inflation is on everyone’s mind these days, rising salaries have helped physicians keep up with rising prices.
Despite the increase in income (and the accompanying increased workload), nearly 30% of cardiologists have taken on extra work, most of that being medical work, but a few did report unrelated side hustles. This may be due not to a shortfall in income, but rather to a desire to pad the coffers for the future. Lauren Podnos, a financial planner with Wealth Care, a firm that specializes in working with physicians and other health care professionals, points out that many physicians like to build wealth as quickly as possible as a hedge against possible burnout later on. “With physicians,” she said, “we work to get to the point where they have the freedom to do whatever they want – cut back and work part-time or transition into another career – so if they do burn out, they have other options.”
Though physician pay rose overall, not all cardiologists enjoyed a boost in income. However, those who did lose ground did not always lay the blame on COVID-19: General pay cuts were mentioned, for example. For physicians overall, a gender pay gap still remains, with men averaging $373,000 per year, in contrast to women who make $282,000. With more women moving into higher-paying specialties, the gap has narrowed somewhat in recent years, and industry leaders are making efforts to accelerate that trend. “A great many of the specialty organizations have efforts underway not just to increase the number of women in specialties but also to address gender pay gaps and bias in evaluations during residency and fellowship,” said Ron Holder, chief operating officer of the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).
Incentive bonuses helped bump up income as well. Overall, 57% of physicians receive some kind of incentive bonus; the average for cardiologists was $85,000 last year, up from $71,000 the prior year. While such bonuses can certainly help the bottom line, they’re not always an unmitigated good. A 2021 study found that incentive programs can cause people to prioritize time spent at work and with work colleagues at the expense of family and personal relationships, a potentially troubling finding with so many physicians struggling with depression and burnout. “There’s been a lot of previous evidence showing that the more time we spend with our loved ones the happier we are,” said Julia Hur, PhD, assistant professor of management and organizations at New York University’s Stern School of Business, and lead author of the study. “The core argument of this study is about attention, and performance incentives create an attentional fixation on money,” she said, “causing people to spend more time with work colleagues and people who are helpful to their careers. And that takes away from time for family and friends.”
Still rewarding
Getting paid well is one thing; feeling that you’re being paid well is another. Only 57% of cardiologists who responded to the survey said they felt they were fairly compensated for their work. This puts them at roughly the middle of the pack of specialties. Contrast that with physicians in public health and preventive medicine who topped the charts on this one, with 72% of these doctors feeling that they were being paid fairly for their work.
However, cardiology did rank at the top of specialties whose members said they would choose medicine if they had a chance to do it again, though that number was down from the previous year (81% in 2021 versus 86% in 2020). Of cardiologists surveyed, 88% would choose cardiology if they got a do-over.
Cardiologists spend an average of 16.4 hours each week on paperwork and administration. That’s only slightly higher than the average for all specialties, about 15.5 hours a week. Despite billing hassles and low reimbursement rates, 80% of cardiologists polled say they plan to continue taking new and existing Medicare and Medicaid patients. Though 17% said they could or would drop low-paying insurers, 83% said they could not do that for business, ethical, or other reasons.
Despite its many headaches, medicine is still a rewarding profession. The most rewarding aspects cited by cardiologists were relationships with patients (34%), being good at their work (23%), and knowing they’re making the world a better place (21%). Though this is mostly in line with previous surveys, in recent years physicians have increasingly cited making the world a better place as a key motivation and reward.
The most challenging part of the job? This will not come as a surprise: Having so many rules and regulations. This was the reason given by 26% of respondents. But a close second – at 21% – was having to work long hours. One positive development is that cardiologists are making peace with their EHR systems. Only 10% said this was the most challenging part of the job (the same percentage that cited dealing with difficult patients as most challenging).
The financial struggles created by the pandemic have eased somewhat, but physicians are still facing an array of challenges, including increased workloads and longer hours. All in all, however, things seem to be looking up.
More than 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties shared information about their incomes and other aspects of their careers in a survey conducted by Medscape. The responses showed a trend back to something like normal after the initial blow of the COVID-19 pandemic.
As the profession began to recover from the pandemic, cardiologists reported that their incomes increased in 2021, reaching an average of $490,000 for the year, up from $459,000 the previous year. This was in keeping with physicians in other specialties. “Compensation for most physicians is trending back up, as demands for physicians accelerates,” said James Taylor, group president and chief operating officer of AMN Healthcare’s Physician & Leadership Solutions Division. “The market for physicians has done a complete 180 over just 7 or 8 months.” And though inflation is on everyone’s mind these days, rising salaries have helped physicians keep up with rising prices.
Despite the increase in income (and the accompanying increased workload), nearly 30% of cardiologists have taken on extra work, most of that being medical work, but a few did report unrelated side hustles. This may be due not to a shortfall in income, but rather to a desire to pad the coffers for the future. Lauren Podnos, a financial planner with Wealth Care, a firm that specializes in working with physicians and other health care professionals, points out that many physicians like to build wealth as quickly as possible as a hedge against possible burnout later on. “With physicians,” she said, “we work to get to the point where they have the freedom to do whatever they want – cut back and work part-time or transition into another career – so if they do burn out, they have other options.”
Though physician pay rose overall, not all cardiologists enjoyed a boost in income. However, those who did lose ground did not always lay the blame on COVID-19: General pay cuts were mentioned, for example. For physicians overall, a gender pay gap still remains, with men averaging $373,000 per year, in contrast to women who make $282,000. With more women moving into higher-paying specialties, the gap has narrowed somewhat in recent years, and industry leaders are making efforts to accelerate that trend. “A great many of the specialty organizations have efforts underway not just to increase the number of women in specialties but also to address gender pay gaps and bias in evaluations during residency and fellowship,” said Ron Holder, chief operating officer of the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).
Incentive bonuses helped bump up income as well. Overall, 57% of physicians receive some kind of incentive bonus; the average for cardiologists was $85,000 last year, up from $71,000 the prior year. While such bonuses can certainly help the bottom line, they’re not always an unmitigated good. A 2021 study found that incentive programs can cause people to prioritize time spent at work and with work colleagues at the expense of family and personal relationships, a potentially troubling finding with so many physicians struggling with depression and burnout. “There’s been a lot of previous evidence showing that the more time we spend with our loved ones the happier we are,” said Julia Hur, PhD, assistant professor of management and organizations at New York University’s Stern School of Business, and lead author of the study. “The core argument of this study is about attention, and performance incentives create an attentional fixation on money,” she said, “causing people to spend more time with work colleagues and people who are helpful to their careers. And that takes away from time for family and friends.”
Still rewarding
Getting paid well is one thing; feeling that you’re being paid well is another. Only 57% of cardiologists who responded to the survey said they felt they were fairly compensated for their work. This puts them at roughly the middle of the pack of specialties. Contrast that with physicians in public health and preventive medicine who topped the charts on this one, with 72% of these doctors feeling that they were being paid fairly for their work.
However, cardiology did rank at the top of specialties whose members said they would choose medicine if they had a chance to do it again, though that number was down from the previous year (81% in 2021 versus 86% in 2020). Of cardiologists surveyed, 88% would choose cardiology if they got a do-over.
Cardiologists spend an average of 16.4 hours each week on paperwork and administration. That’s only slightly higher than the average for all specialties, about 15.5 hours a week. Despite billing hassles and low reimbursement rates, 80% of cardiologists polled say they plan to continue taking new and existing Medicare and Medicaid patients. Though 17% said they could or would drop low-paying insurers, 83% said they could not do that for business, ethical, or other reasons.
Despite its many headaches, medicine is still a rewarding profession. The most rewarding aspects cited by cardiologists were relationships with patients (34%), being good at their work (23%), and knowing they’re making the world a better place (21%). Though this is mostly in line with previous surveys, in recent years physicians have increasingly cited making the world a better place as a key motivation and reward.
The most challenging part of the job? This will not come as a surprise: Having so many rules and regulations. This was the reason given by 26% of respondents. But a close second – at 21% – was having to work long hours. One positive development is that cardiologists are making peace with their EHR systems. Only 10% said this was the most challenging part of the job (the same percentage that cited dealing with difficult patients as most challenging).
The financial struggles created by the pandemic have eased somewhat, but physicians are still facing an array of challenges, including increased workloads and longer hours. All in all, however, things seem to be looking up.
More than 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties shared information about their incomes and other aspects of their careers in a survey conducted by Medscape. The responses showed a trend back to something like normal after the initial blow of the COVID-19 pandemic.
As the profession began to recover from the pandemic, cardiologists reported that their incomes increased in 2021, reaching an average of $490,000 for the year, up from $459,000 the previous year. This was in keeping with physicians in other specialties. “Compensation for most physicians is trending back up, as demands for physicians accelerates,” said James Taylor, group president and chief operating officer of AMN Healthcare’s Physician & Leadership Solutions Division. “The market for physicians has done a complete 180 over just 7 or 8 months.” And though inflation is on everyone’s mind these days, rising salaries have helped physicians keep up with rising prices.
Despite the increase in income (and the accompanying increased workload), nearly 30% of cardiologists have taken on extra work, most of that being medical work, but a few did report unrelated side hustles. This may be due not to a shortfall in income, but rather to a desire to pad the coffers for the future. Lauren Podnos, a financial planner with Wealth Care, a firm that specializes in working with physicians and other health care professionals, points out that many physicians like to build wealth as quickly as possible as a hedge against possible burnout later on. “With physicians,” she said, “we work to get to the point where they have the freedom to do whatever they want – cut back and work part-time or transition into another career – so if they do burn out, they have other options.”
Though physician pay rose overall, not all cardiologists enjoyed a boost in income. However, those who did lose ground did not always lay the blame on COVID-19: General pay cuts were mentioned, for example. For physicians overall, a gender pay gap still remains, with men averaging $373,000 per year, in contrast to women who make $282,000. With more women moving into higher-paying specialties, the gap has narrowed somewhat in recent years, and industry leaders are making efforts to accelerate that trend. “A great many of the specialty organizations have efforts underway not just to increase the number of women in specialties but also to address gender pay gaps and bias in evaluations during residency and fellowship,” said Ron Holder, chief operating officer of the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).
Incentive bonuses helped bump up income as well. Overall, 57% of physicians receive some kind of incentive bonus; the average for cardiologists was $85,000 last year, up from $71,000 the prior year. While such bonuses can certainly help the bottom line, they’re not always an unmitigated good. A 2021 study found that incentive programs can cause people to prioritize time spent at work and with work colleagues at the expense of family and personal relationships, a potentially troubling finding with so many physicians struggling with depression and burnout. “There’s been a lot of previous evidence showing that the more time we spend with our loved ones the happier we are,” said Julia Hur, PhD, assistant professor of management and organizations at New York University’s Stern School of Business, and lead author of the study. “The core argument of this study is about attention, and performance incentives create an attentional fixation on money,” she said, “causing people to spend more time with work colleagues and people who are helpful to their careers. And that takes away from time for family and friends.”
Still rewarding
Getting paid well is one thing; feeling that you’re being paid well is another. Only 57% of cardiologists who responded to the survey said they felt they were fairly compensated for their work. This puts them at roughly the middle of the pack of specialties. Contrast that with physicians in public health and preventive medicine who topped the charts on this one, with 72% of these doctors feeling that they were being paid fairly for their work.
However, cardiology did rank at the top of specialties whose members said they would choose medicine if they had a chance to do it again, though that number was down from the previous year (81% in 2021 versus 86% in 2020). Of cardiologists surveyed, 88% would choose cardiology if they got a do-over.
Cardiologists spend an average of 16.4 hours each week on paperwork and administration. That’s only slightly higher than the average for all specialties, about 15.5 hours a week. Despite billing hassles and low reimbursement rates, 80% of cardiologists polled say they plan to continue taking new and existing Medicare and Medicaid patients. Though 17% said they could or would drop low-paying insurers, 83% said they could not do that for business, ethical, or other reasons.
Despite its many headaches, medicine is still a rewarding profession. The most rewarding aspects cited by cardiologists were relationships with patients (34%), being good at their work (23%), and knowing they’re making the world a better place (21%). Though this is mostly in line with previous surveys, in recent years physicians have increasingly cited making the world a better place as a key motivation and reward.
The most challenging part of the job? This will not come as a surprise: Having so many rules and regulations. This was the reason given by 26% of respondents. But a close second – at 21% – was having to work long hours. One positive development is that cardiologists are making peace with their EHR systems. Only 10% said this was the most challenging part of the job (the same percentage that cited dealing with difficult patients as most challenging).
Anti-vaccine physician sentenced to prison for role in Capitol riot
Simone Gold, MD, JD, a leader in the anti-vaccine movement and founder of noted anti-vaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors, has been sentenced to 2 months in prison for her role in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
In March, As a part of the plea agreement, additional charges of obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business were dropped. Although she insisted at the time that her actions were peaceful, Dr. Gold did admit, according to news reports, that she witnessed the assault of a police officer while inside the building.
America’s Frontline Doctors is an organization noted for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and promoting unproven and potentially dangerous drugs, including ivermectin, for treating the illness. The group issued a statement saying that while Dr. Gold did express regret for “being involved in a situation that later became unpredictable,” her sentence is an example of “selective prosecution.”
“Dr. Gold remains committed to her advocacy for physicians’ free speech,” the statement noted, adding that Dr. Gold has been targeted by attacks attempting to “cancel” her since July 2020, when the California Medical Board threatened to revoke her license for what the statement calls an “unfounded claim” that she was sharing dangerous disinformation.
According to Associated Press reporting, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper did not consider Dr. Gold’s anti-vaccine activity when determining the sentence. However, Judge Cooper did say that Dr. Gold was not a “casual bystander” on January 6 and criticized the organization for misleading its supporters into believing that her prosecution was a politically motivated violation of her free-speech rights.
Prosecutors accused Dr. Gold of trying to profit from her crime, according to AP reports, noting in a court filing that America’s Frontline Doctors has raised more than $430,000 for her defense. “It beggars belief that [Dr.] Gold could have incurred anywhere near $430,000 in costs for her criminal defense: After all, she pleaded guilty – in the face of indisputable evidence – without filing a single motion.”
In the past, Dr. Gold has worked at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles. These institutions have disassociated themselves from her. Her medical license remains active, but she noted on her website that she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.” Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned a law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford Law School.
The AP reports that since her arrest, Dr. Gold has moved from California to Florida.
In addition to the prison time, Judge Cooper ordered Dr. Gold to pay a $9,500 fine, and she will be subject to 12 months of supervised release after completing her sentence, according to media reports. At press time, the U.S. Department of Justice has not released an official announcement on the sentencing.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Simone Gold, MD, JD, a leader in the anti-vaccine movement and founder of noted anti-vaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors, has been sentenced to 2 months in prison for her role in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
In March, As a part of the plea agreement, additional charges of obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business were dropped. Although she insisted at the time that her actions were peaceful, Dr. Gold did admit, according to news reports, that she witnessed the assault of a police officer while inside the building.
America’s Frontline Doctors is an organization noted for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and promoting unproven and potentially dangerous drugs, including ivermectin, for treating the illness. The group issued a statement saying that while Dr. Gold did express regret for “being involved in a situation that later became unpredictable,” her sentence is an example of “selective prosecution.”
“Dr. Gold remains committed to her advocacy for physicians’ free speech,” the statement noted, adding that Dr. Gold has been targeted by attacks attempting to “cancel” her since July 2020, when the California Medical Board threatened to revoke her license for what the statement calls an “unfounded claim” that she was sharing dangerous disinformation.
According to Associated Press reporting, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper did not consider Dr. Gold’s anti-vaccine activity when determining the sentence. However, Judge Cooper did say that Dr. Gold was not a “casual bystander” on January 6 and criticized the organization for misleading its supporters into believing that her prosecution was a politically motivated violation of her free-speech rights.
Prosecutors accused Dr. Gold of trying to profit from her crime, according to AP reports, noting in a court filing that America’s Frontline Doctors has raised more than $430,000 for her defense. “It beggars belief that [Dr.] Gold could have incurred anywhere near $430,000 in costs for her criminal defense: After all, she pleaded guilty – in the face of indisputable evidence – without filing a single motion.”
In the past, Dr. Gold has worked at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles. These institutions have disassociated themselves from her. Her medical license remains active, but she noted on her website that she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.” Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned a law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford Law School.
The AP reports that since her arrest, Dr. Gold has moved from California to Florida.
In addition to the prison time, Judge Cooper ordered Dr. Gold to pay a $9,500 fine, and she will be subject to 12 months of supervised release after completing her sentence, according to media reports. At press time, the U.S. Department of Justice has not released an official announcement on the sentencing.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Simone Gold, MD, JD, a leader in the anti-vaccine movement and founder of noted anti-vaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors, has been sentenced to 2 months in prison for her role in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
In March, As a part of the plea agreement, additional charges of obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business were dropped. Although she insisted at the time that her actions were peaceful, Dr. Gold did admit, according to news reports, that she witnessed the assault of a police officer while inside the building.
America’s Frontline Doctors is an organization noted for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and promoting unproven and potentially dangerous drugs, including ivermectin, for treating the illness. The group issued a statement saying that while Dr. Gold did express regret for “being involved in a situation that later became unpredictable,” her sentence is an example of “selective prosecution.”
“Dr. Gold remains committed to her advocacy for physicians’ free speech,” the statement noted, adding that Dr. Gold has been targeted by attacks attempting to “cancel” her since July 2020, when the California Medical Board threatened to revoke her license for what the statement calls an “unfounded claim” that she was sharing dangerous disinformation.
According to Associated Press reporting, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper did not consider Dr. Gold’s anti-vaccine activity when determining the sentence. However, Judge Cooper did say that Dr. Gold was not a “casual bystander” on January 6 and criticized the organization for misleading its supporters into believing that her prosecution was a politically motivated violation of her free-speech rights.
Prosecutors accused Dr. Gold of trying to profit from her crime, according to AP reports, noting in a court filing that America’s Frontline Doctors has raised more than $430,000 for her defense. “It beggars belief that [Dr.] Gold could have incurred anywhere near $430,000 in costs for her criminal defense: After all, she pleaded guilty – in the face of indisputable evidence – without filing a single motion.”
In the past, Dr. Gold has worked at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles. These institutions have disassociated themselves from her. Her medical license remains active, but she noted on her website that she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.” Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned a law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford Law School.
The AP reports that since her arrest, Dr. Gold has moved from California to Florida.
In addition to the prison time, Judge Cooper ordered Dr. Gold to pay a $9,500 fine, and she will be subject to 12 months of supervised release after completing her sentence, according to media reports. At press time, the U.S. Department of Justice has not released an official announcement on the sentencing.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician convicted in $10M veteran insurance fraud scheme
A federal jury found Alexander, Ark., family physician Joe David May, MD, known locally as “Jay,” guilty on all 22 counts for which he was indicted in a multi-million-dollar conspiracy to defraud TRICARE, the federal insurance program for U.S. veterans.
. A pharmacy promoter paid recruiters to find TRICARE beneficiaries, then paid Dr. May and other medical professionals to rubber-stamp prescriptions for pain cream, whether or not the patients needed it.
As a result of this scheme, TRICARE paid more than $12 million for compounded drugs. Dr. May, according to evidence presented at the trial, wrote 226 prescriptions over the course of 10 months, costing TRICARE $4.63 million. All but one of these prescriptions were supplied by pharmaceutical sales representatives Glenn Hudson and Derek Clifton, according to federal officials. The sales reps passed the prescriptions to the providers, including Dr. May.
Dr. May accepted $15,000 in cash bribes and signed off on the prescriptions without consulting or examining patients to determine whether or not the prescriptions were needed. Mr. Hudson and Mr. Clifton have pleaded guilty in the scheme, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The conspiracy was complex and involved recruiting patients. According to prosecutors, one recruiter, for example, hosted a meeting at the Fisher Armory in North Little Rock, Ark., where he signed up patients for the drugs and offered to pay them $1,000. Thirteen of the patients from this meeting were sent to Dr. May, who signed the prescriptions. This group alone cost the veterans’ insurance program $370,000, say prosecutors. When the conspirators learned that reimbursements from TRICARE were set to decrease in May 2015, they rushed to profit from the scheme while there was still time. In April 2015 alone, Dr. May signed 59 prescriptions, contributing to the bilking of TRICARE for another $1.4 million.
According to a report in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Dr. May and Mr. Clifton, a former basketball coach, were longtime friends. Alexander Morgan, U.S. Attorney and one of the prosecutors in the case, said that Dr. May signed the prescriptions at the behest of Mr. Clifton. According to the Gazette report, Mr. Morgan said the scheme was successful for as long as it was because “TRICARE is not in the business of catching fraud. Tricare is in the business of delivering health care to our nation’s veterans. They trust the professionals to do the right thing.”
Dr. May is currently licensed in Arkansas to practice family medicine and emergency medicine and as a hospitalist. His license expires in September.
Dr. May is free pending a presentencing report. In addition to sentences imposed for fraud, mail fraud, falsifying records, and violation of anti kickback laws, for which he faces up to 20 years in prison, Dr. May will serve an additional 4 years for convictions on two counts of aggravated identity theft.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A federal jury found Alexander, Ark., family physician Joe David May, MD, known locally as “Jay,” guilty on all 22 counts for which he was indicted in a multi-million-dollar conspiracy to defraud TRICARE, the federal insurance program for U.S. veterans.
. A pharmacy promoter paid recruiters to find TRICARE beneficiaries, then paid Dr. May and other medical professionals to rubber-stamp prescriptions for pain cream, whether or not the patients needed it.
As a result of this scheme, TRICARE paid more than $12 million for compounded drugs. Dr. May, according to evidence presented at the trial, wrote 226 prescriptions over the course of 10 months, costing TRICARE $4.63 million. All but one of these prescriptions were supplied by pharmaceutical sales representatives Glenn Hudson and Derek Clifton, according to federal officials. The sales reps passed the prescriptions to the providers, including Dr. May.
Dr. May accepted $15,000 in cash bribes and signed off on the prescriptions without consulting or examining patients to determine whether or not the prescriptions were needed. Mr. Hudson and Mr. Clifton have pleaded guilty in the scheme, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The conspiracy was complex and involved recruiting patients. According to prosecutors, one recruiter, for example, hosted a meeting at the Fisher Armory in North Little Rock, Ark., where he signed up patients for the drugs and offered to pay them $1,000. Thirteen of the patients from this meeting were sent to Dr. May, who signed the prescriptions. This group alone cost the veterans’ insurance program $370,000, say prosecutors. When the conspirators learned that reimbursements from TRICARE were set to decrease in May 2015, they rushed to profit from the scheme while there was still time. In April 2015 alone, Dr. May signed 59 prescriptions, contributing to the bilking of TRICARE for another $1.4 million.
According to a report in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Dr. May and Mr. Clifton, a former basketball coach, were longtime friends. Alexander Morgan, U.S. Attorney and one of the prosecutors in the case, said that Dr. May signed the prescriptions at the behest of Mr. Clifton. According to the Gazette report, Mr. Morgan said the scheme was successful for as long as it was because “TRICARE is not in the business of catching fraud. Tricare is in the business of delivering health care to our nation’s veterans. They trust the professionals to do the right thing.”
Dr. May is currently licensed in Arkansas to practice family medicine and emergency medicine and as a hospitalist. His license expires in September.
Dr. May is free pending a presentencing report. In addition to sentences imposed for fraud, mail fraud, falsifying records, and violation of anti kickback laws, for which he faces up to 20 years in prison, Dr. May will serve an additional 4 years for convictions on two counts of aggravated identity theft.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A federal jury found Alexander, Ark., family physician Joe David May, MD, known locally as “Jay,” guilty on all 22 counts for which he was indicted in a multi-million-dollar conspiracy to defraud TRICARE, the federal insurance program for U.S. veterans.
. A pharmacy promoter paid recruiters to find TRICARE beneficiaries, then paid Dr. May and other medical professionals to rubber-stamp prescriptions for pain cream, whether or not the patients needed it.
As a result of this scheme, TRICARE paid more than $12 million for compounded drugs. Dr. May, according to evidence presented at the trial, wrote 226 prescriptions over the course of 10 months, costing TRICARE $4.63 million. All but one of these prescriptions were supplied by pharmaceutical sales representatives Glenn Hudson and Derek Clifton, according to federal officials. The sales reps passed the prescriptions to the providers, including Dr. May.
Dr. May accepted $15,000 in cash bribes and signed off on the prescriptions without consulting or examining patients to determine whether or not the prescriptions were needed. Mr. Hudson and Mr. Clifton have pleaded guilty in the scheme, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The conspiracy was complex and involved recruiting patients. According to prosecutors, one recruiter, for example, hosted a meeting at the Fisher Armory in North Little Rock, Ark., where he signed up patients for the drugs and offered to pay them $1,000. Thirteen of the patients from this meeting were sent to Dr. May, who signed the prescriptions. This group alone cost the veterans’ insurance program $370,000, say prosecutors. When the conspirators learned that reimbursements from TRICARE were set to decrease in May 2015, they rushed to profit from the scheme while there was still time. In April 2015 alone, Dr. May signed 59 prescriptions, contributing to the bilking of TRICARE for another $1.4 million.
According to a report in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Dr. May and Mr. Clifton, a former basketball coach, were longtime friends. Alexander Morgan, U.S. Attorney and one of the prosecutors in the case, said that Dr. May signed the prescriptions at the behest of Mr. Clifton. According to the Gazette report, Mr. Morgan said the scheme was successful for as long as it was because “TRICARE is not in the business of catching fraud. Tricare is in the business of delivering health care to our nation’s veterans. They trust the professionals to do the right thing.”
Dr. May is currently licensed in Arkansas to practice family medicine and emergency medicine and as a hospitalist. His license expires in September.
Dr. May is free pending a presentencing report. In addition to sentences imposed for fraud, mail fraud, falsifying records, and violation of anti kickback laws, for which he faces up to 20 years in prison, Dr. May will serve an additional 4 years for convictions on two counts of aggravated identity theft.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
California doctor to pay $9.5 million in Medicare, Medi-Cal fraud scheme
Part of the payment was a settlement in a civil case in which Minas Kochumian, MD, an internist who ran a solo practice in Northridge, Calif., was accused of submitting claims to Medicare and Medi-Cal for procedures, services, and tests that were never performed. The procedures he falsely billed for included injecting a medication for treating osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, draining tailbone cysts, and removal of various growths.
As part of the settlement, Dr. Kochumian admitted that he intentionally submitted false claims with the intent to deceive the United States and the State of California. The damages and penalties were possible under the federal False Claims Act and the California False Claims Act.
According to the Medical Board of California, Dr. Kochumian’s license is current and set to expire next July.
The allegations against Dr. Kochumian were first brought to the attention of authorities in a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Elize Oganesyan, Dr. Kochumian’s former medical assistant, and Damon Davies, former information technology consultant for the practice. Among her other duties, Ms. Oganesyan was responsible for verifying insurance eligibility and obtaining authorization for drugs, procedures, services, and tests.
The medical assistant first realized that something was amiss when a patient brought her a Medicare Explanation of Benefits document that included charges for an injection the practice had not administered, according to court records. Ms. Oganesyan then realized the clinic was filing claims for other services that were never provided. She stated in the original complaint that the clinic did not even have the necessary equipment for providing some of these tests — skin allergy tests, for example.
The False Claims Act permits private parties to sue on behalf of the government for false claims for government funds and to receive a share of any recovery. Ms. Oganesyan and Davies will receive more than $1.75 million as their share of the recovery. The whistleblowers’ claims for attorneys’ fees are not resolved by this settlement, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of California.
The $9.5 million payment includes $5.4 million owed by Dr. Kochumian as criminal restitution following his guilty plea to one count of healthcare fraud in a separate criminal case filed in the Central District of California. In addition to the fine, Dr. Kochumian was sentenced to 41 months in prison, according to a statement by California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
“When doctors misuse the state’s Medi-Cal funds, they violate their Hippocratic Oath by harming a program which exists to help California’s Medi-Cal population, including the elderly, the sick, and the vulnerable,” said Mr. Bonta. “Dr. Kochumian’s alleged misconduct violated the trust of the patients in his care, and he selfishly pocketed funds that would otherwise have gone toward critical publicly funded healthcare services.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Part of the payment was a settlement in a civil case in which Minas Kochumian, MD, an internist who ran a solo practice in Northridge, Calif., was accused of submitting claims to Medicare and Medi-Cal for procedures, services, and tests that were never performed. The procedures he falsely billed for included injecting a medication for treating osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, draining tailbone cysts, and removal of various growths.
As part of the settlement, Dr. Kochumian admitted that he intentionally submitted false claims with the intent to deceive the United States and the State of California. The damages and penalties were possible under the federal False Claims Act and the California False Claims Act.
According to the Medical Board of California, Dr. Kochumian’s license is current and set to expire next July.
The allegations against Dr. Kochumian were first brought to the attention of authorities in a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Elize Oganesyan, Dr. Kochumian’s former medical assistant, and Damon Davies, former information technology consultant for the practice. Among her other duties, Ms. Oganesyan was responsible for verifying insurance eligibility and obtaining authorization for drugs, procedures, services, and tests.
The medical assistant first realized that something was amiss when a patient brought her a Medicare Explanation of Benefits document that included charges for an injection the practice had not administered, according to court records. Ms. Oganesyan then realized the clinic was filing claims for other services that were never provided. She stated in the original complaint that the clinic did not even have the necessary equipment for providing some of these tests — skin allergy tests, for example.
The False Claims Act permits private parties to sue on behalf of the government for false claims for government funds and to receive a share of any recovery. Ms. Oganesyan and Davies will receive more than $1.75 million as their share of the recovery. The whistleblowers’ claims for attorneys’ fees are not resolved by this settlement, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of California.
The $9.5 million payment includes $5.4 million owed by Dr. Kochumian as criminal restitution following his guilty plea to one count of healthcare fraud in a separate criminal case filed in the Central District of California. In addition to the fine, Dr. Kochumian was sentenced to 41 months in prison, according to a statement by California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
“When doctors misuse the state’s Medi-Cal funds, they violate their Hippocratic Oath by harming a program which exists to help California’s Medi-Cal population, including the elderly, the sick, and the vulnerable,” said Mr. Bonta. “Dr. Kochumian’s alleged misconduct violated the trust of the patients in his care, and he selfishly pocketed funds that would otherwise have gone toward critical publicly funded healthcare services.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Part of the payment was a settlement in a civil case in which Minas Kochumian, MD, an internist who ran a solo practice in Northridge, Calif., was accused of submitting claims to Medicare and Medi-Cal for procedures, services, and tests that were never performed. The procedures he falsely billed for included injecting a medication for treating osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, draining tailbone cysts, and removal of various growths.
As part of the settlement, Dr. Kochumian admitted that he intentionally submitted false claims with the intent to deceive the United States and the State of California. The damages and penalties were possible under the federal False Claims Act and the California False Claims Act.
According to the Medical Board of California, Dr. Kochumian’s license is current and set to expire next July.
The allegations against Dr. Kochumian were first brought to the attention of authorities in a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Elize Oganesyan, Dr. Kochumian’s former medical assistant, and Damon Davies, former information technology consultant for the practice. Among her other duties, Ms. Oganesyan was responsible for verifying insurance eligibility and obtaining authorization for drugs, procedures, services, and tests.
The medical assistant first realized that something was amiss when a patient brought her a Medicare Explanation of Benefits document that included charges for an injection the practice had not administered, according to court records. Ms. Oganesyan then realized the clinic was filing claims for other services that were never provided. She stated in the original complaint that the clinic did not even have the necessary equipment for providing some of these tests — skin allergy tests, for example.
The False Claims Act permits private parties to sue on behalf of the government for false claims for government funds and to receive a share of any recovery. Ms. Oganesyan and Davies will receive more than $1.75 million as their share of the recovery. The whistleblowers’ claims for attorneys’ fees are not resolved by this settlement, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of California.
The $9.5 million payment includes $5.4 million owed by Dr. Kochumian as criminal restitution following his guilty plea to one count of healthcare fraud in a separate criminal case filed in the Central District of California. In addition to the fine, Dr. Kochumian was sentenced to 41 months in prison, according to a statement by California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
“When doctors misuse the state’s Medi-Cal funds, they violate their Hippocratic Oath by harming a program which exists to help California’s Medi-Cal population, including the elderly, the sick, and the vulnerable,” said Mr. Bonta. “Dr. Kochumian’s alleged misconduct violated the trust of the patients in his care, and he selfishly pocketed funds that would otherwise have gone toward critical publicly funded healthcare services.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Goodie bag’ pill mill doctor sentenced to 2 decades in prison
A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.
Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.
Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.
The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.
In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.
According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.
The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.
After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.
On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.
Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.
“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.
Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.
Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.
The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.
In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.
According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.
The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.
After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.
On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.
Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.
“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.
Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.
Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.
The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.
In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.
According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.
The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.
After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.
On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.
Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.
“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.