User login
AMA, hospital group sue federal government over surprise billing law
which tilts toward using prevailing rates paid for services.
The American Hospital Association and American Medical Association said they will ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to try to prevent implementation of certain provisions of new federal rules on surprise bills. This court is often a venue for fights over federal rules. Also joining the suit are Nevada-based Renown Health, UMass Memorial Health, and two physicians based in North Carolina, AHA and AMA said.
Federal agencies, including the Department of Health & Human Services, in September had unveiled the rule on surprise medical bills that will take effect Jan. 1.
Under this rule, a key benchmark for payment disputes would be the qualifying payment amount (QPA), which is pegged to median contracted rates. In the dispute-resolution process outlined in the rule, there is a presumption that the QPA is the appropriate out-of-network rate.
The rule allows for exceptions in which the independent mediating organization handling the payment dispute resolution has “credible information” as to why the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate.
In the view of the federal agencies that issued the rule, this approach “encourages predictable outcomes,” which likely would reduce the number of disputes that go through the resolution process while also “providing equitable and clear standards” for cases to appropriately deviate from QPA. HHS was joined in issuing the rule by the Treasury and Labor Departments and the Office of Personnel Management.
AMA and AHA disagree with their view, seeing this approach as a boon for insurers at the expense of physicians and hospitals.
In a press release, they said the rule’s approach to surprise billing would “all but ensure that hospitals, physicians, and other providers will routinely be undercompensated by commercial insurers, and patients will have fewer choices for access to in-network services.”
The rule is part of the implementation of a federal law passed in December 2020, known as the No Surprises Act. In their statement, AHA and AMA said their legal challenge would not prevent “core patient protections’’ of that law from moving forward.
“No patient should fear receiving a surprise medical bill,” Rick Pollack, AHA president and chief executive, said in the statement. “That is why hospitals and health systems supported the No Surprises Act to protect patients and keep them out of the middle of disputes between providers and insurers. Congress carefully crafted the law with a balanced, patient-friendly approach and it should be implemented as intended.”
AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, added the approach used in the rule on surprise billing could create “an unsustainable situation for physicians.”
“Our legal challenge urges regulators to ensure there is a fair and meaningful process to resolve disputes between health care providers and insurance companies,” Dr. Harmon said.
AHA and AMA included with their statement a link to a November letter from more than 150 members of Congress, who also objected to the approach taken in designing the independent dispute-resolution (IDR) process.
“This directive establishes a de facto benchmark rate, making the median in-network rate the default factor considered in the IDR process. This approach is contrary to statute and could incentivize insurance companies to set artificially low payment rates, which would narrow provider networks and jeopardize patient access to care – the exact opposite of the goal of the law,” wrote the members of Congress, including Rep. Raul Ruiz, MD, a California Democrat, and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, an Indiana Republican.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
which tilts toward using prevailing rates paid for services.
The American Hospital Association and American Medical Association said they will ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to try to prevent implementation of certain provisions of new federal rules on surprise bills. This court is often a venue for fights over federal rules. Also joining the suit are Nevada-based Renown Health, UMass Memorial Health, and two physicians based in North Carolina, AHA and AMA said.
Federal agencies, including the Department of Health & Human Services, in September had unveiled the rule on surprise medical bills that will take effect Jan. 1.
Under this rule, a key benchmark for payment disputes would be the qualifying payment amount (QPA), which is pegged to median contracted rates. In the dispute-resolution process outlined in the rule, there is a presumption that the QPA is the appropriate out-of-network rate.
The rule allows for exceptions in which the independent mediating organization handling the payment dispute resolution has “credible information” as to why the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate.
In the view of the federal agencies that issued the rule, this approach “encourages predictable outcomes,” which likely would reduce the number of disputes that go through the resolution process while also “providing equitable and clear standards” for cases to appropriately deviate from QPA. HHS was joined in issuing the rule by the Treasury and Labor Departments and the Office of Personnel Management.
AMA and AHA disagree with their view, seeing this approach as a boon for insurers at the expense of physicians and hospitals.
In a press release, they said the rule’s approach to surprise billing would “all but ensure that hospitals, physicians, and other providers will routinely be undercompensated by commercial insurers, and patients will have fewer choices for access to in-network services.”
The rule is part of the implementation of a federal law passed in December 2020, known as the No Surprises Act. In their statement, AHA and AMA said their legal challenge would not prevent “core patient protections’’ of that law from moving forward.
“No patient should fear receiving a surprise medical bill,” Rick Pollack, AHA president and chief executive, said in the statement. “That is why hospitals and health systems supported the No Surprises Act to protect patients and keep them out of the middle of disputes between providers and insurers. Congress carefully crafted the law with a balanced, patient-friendly approach and it should be implemented as intended.”
AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, added the approach used in the rule on surprise billing could create “an unsustainable situation for physicians.”
“Our legal challenge urges regulators to ensure there is a fair and meaningful process to resolve disputes between health care providers and insurance companies,” Dr. Harmon said.
AHA and AMA included with their statement a link to a November letter from more than 150 members of Congress, who also objected to the approach taken in designing the independent dispute-resolution (IDR) process.
“This directive establishes a de facto benchmark rate, making the median in-network rate the default factor considered in the IDR process. This approach is contrary to statute and could incentivize insurance companies to set artificially low payment rates, which would narrow provider networks and jeopardize patient access to care – the exact opposite of the goal of the law,” wrote the members of Congress, including Rep. Raul Ruiz, MD, a California Democrat, and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, an Indiana Republican.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
which tilts toward using prevailing rates paid for services.
The American Hospital Association and American Medical Association said they will ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to try to prevent implementation of certain provisions of new federal rules on surprise bills. This court is often a venue for fights over federal rules. Also joining the suit are Nevada-based Renown Health, UMass Memorial Health, and two physicians based in North Carolina, AHA and AMA said.
Federal agencies, including the Department of Health & Human Services, in September had unveiled the rule on surprise medical bills that will take effect Jan. 1.
Under this rule, a key benchmark for payment disputes would be the qualifying payment amount (QPA), which is pegged to median contracted rates. In the dispute-resolution process outlined in the rule, there is a presumption that the QPA is the appropriate out-of-network rate.
The rule allows for exceptions in which the independent mediating organization handling the payment dispute resolution has “credible information” as to why the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate.
In the view of the federal agencies that issued the rule, this approach “encourages predictable outcomes,” which likely would reduce the number of disputes that go through the resolution process while also “providing equitable and clear standards” for cases to appropriately deviate from QPA. HHS was joined in issuing the rule by the Treasury and Labor Departments and the Office of Personnel Management.
AMA and AHA disagree with their view, seeing this approach as a boon for insurers at the expense of physicians and hospitals.
In a press release, they said the rule’s approach to surprise billing would “all but ensure that hospitals, physicians, and other providers will routinely be undercompensated by commercial insurers, and patients will have fewer choices for access to in-network services.”
The rule is part of the implementation of a federal law passed in December 2020, known as the No Surprises Act. In their statement, AHA and AMA said their legal challenge would not prevent “core patient protections’’ of that law from moving forward.
“No patient should fear receiving a surprise medical bill,” Rick Pollack, AHA president and chief executive, said in the statement. “That is why hospitals and health systems supported the No Surprises Act to protect patients and keep them out of the middle of disputes between providers and insurers. Congress carefully crafted the law with a balanced, patient-friendly approach and it should be implemented as intended.”
AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, added the approach used in the rule on surprise billing could create “an unsustainable situation for physicians.”
“Our legal challenge urges regulators to ensure there is a fair and meaningful process to resolve disputes between health care providers and insurance companies,” Dr. Harmon said.
AHA and AMA included with their statement a link to a November letter from more than 150 members of Congress, who also objected to the approach taken in designing the independent dispute-resolution (IDR) process.
“This directive establishes a de facto benchmark rate, making the median in-network rate the default factor considered in the IDR process. This approach is contrary to statute and could incentivize insurance companies to set artificially low payment rates, which would narrow provider networks and jeopardize patient access to care – the exact opposite of the goal of the law,” wrote the members of Congress, including Rep. Raul Ruiz, MD, a California Democrat, and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, an Indiana Republican.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New CMS rule challenges hospitals, but not vendors, to make EHRs safer
In a little-noticed action last month, so as to meet an objective of the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program, starting next year.
Experts praised the move but said that EHR developers should share the responsibility for ensuring that the use of their products doesn’t harm patients.
A number of safety problems are associated with hospital EHR systems, ranging from insufficient protection against medication errors and inadvertent turnoffs of drug interaction checkers to allowing physicians to use free text instead of coded data for key patient indicators. Although hospitals aren’t required to do anything about safety problems that turn up in their self-audits, practitioners who perform the self-assessment will likely encounter challenges that they were previously unaware of and will fix them, experts say.
Studies over the past decade have shown that improper configuration and use of EHRs, as well as design flaws in the systems, can cause avoidable patient injuries or can fail to prevent them. For example, one large study found that clinical decision support (CDS) features in EHRs prevented adverse drug events (ADEs) in only 61.6% of cases in 2016. That was an improvement over the ADE prevention rate of 54% in 2009. Nevertheless, nearly 40% of ADEs were not averted.
Another study, sponsored by the Leapfrog Group, found that EHRs used in U.S. hospitals failed to detect up to 1 in 3 potentially harmful drug interactions and other medication errors. In this study, about 10% of the detection failures were attributed to design problems in EHRs.
The new CMS measure requires hospitals to evaluate their EHRs using safety guides that were developed in 2014 and were revised in 2016 by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC). Known as the Safety Assurance Factors for Resilience (SAFER) guides, they include a set of recommendations to help health care organizations optimize the safety of EHRs.
Surprises in store for hospitals
Dean Sittig, PhD, a professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization that a 2018 study he conducted with his colleague Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, found that eight surveyed health care organizations were following about 75% of the SAFER recommendations.
He said that when hospitals and health care systems start to assess their systems, many will be surprised at what they are not doing or not doing right. Although the new CMS rule doesn’t require them to correct deficiencies, he expects that many will.
For this reason, Dr. Sittig believes the requirement will have a positive effect on patient safety. But the regulation may not go far enough because it doesn’t impose any requirements on EHR vendors, he said.
In a commentary published in JAMA, Dr. Sittig and Dr. Hardeep, a professor at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, cite a study showing that 40% of “EHR-related products” had “nonconformities” with EHR certification regulations that could potentially harm patients. “Many nonconformities could have been identified by the developer prior to product release,” they say.
Shared responsibility
According to the JAMA commentary, the SAFER guides were developed “to help health care organizations and EHR developers conduct voluntary self-assessments to help eliminate or minimize EHR-related safety risks and hazards.”
In response to a query from this news organization, ONC confirmed that the SAFER guides were intended for use by developers as well as practitioners. ONC said it supports CMS’s approach to incentivize collaborations between EHR vendors and health care organizations. It noted that some entities have already teamed up to the meet the SAFER guides’ recommendations.
Hospitals and EHR developers must share responsibility for safety, Dr. Sittig and Dr. Singh argue, because many SAFER recommendations are based on EHR features that have to be programmed by developers.
For example, one recommendation is that patient identification information be displayed on all portions of the EHR user interface, wristbands, and printouts. Hospitals can’t implement this feature if the developer hasn’t built it into its product.
Dr. Sittig and Dr. Singh suggest three strategies to complement CMS’s new regulation:
- Because in their view, ONC’s EHR certification criteria are insufficient to address many patient safety concerns, CMS should require EHR developers to assess their products annually.
- ONC should conduct annual reviews of the SAFER recommendations with input from EHR developers and safety experts.
- EHR vendors should disseminate guidance to their customers on how to address safety practices, perhaps including EHR configuration guides related to safety.
Safety in EHR certification
At a recent press conference that ONC held to update reporters on its current plans, officials were asked to comment on Dr. Sittig’s and Dr. Singh’s proposition that EHR developers, as well as hospitals, do more to ensure system safety.
Steve Posnack, deputy national coordinator of health IT, noted that the ONC-supervised certification process requires developers to pay attention to how they “implement and integrate safety practices in their software design. We have certification criteria ... around what’s called safety-enhanced design – specific capabilities in the EHR that are sensitive to safety in areas like e-prescribing, medication, and high-risk events, where you want to make sure there’s more attention paid to the safety-related dynamics.”
After the conference, ONC told this news organization that among the safety-related certification criteria is one on user-centered design, which must be used in programming certain EHR features. Another is on the use of a quality management system to guide the creation of each EHR capability.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that not all EHR developers have paid sufficient attention to safety in their products. This is shown in the corporate integrity agreements with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that developers eClinicalWorks and Greenway agreed to sign because, according to the government, they had not met all of the certification criteria they’d claimed to satisfy.
Under these agreements, the vendors agreed to follow “relevant standards, checklists, self-assessment tools, and other practices identified in the ONC SAFER guides and the ICE Report(s) to optimize the safety and safe use of EHRs” in a number of specific areas.
Even if all EHRs conformed to the certification requirements for safety, they would fall short of the SAFER recommendations, Dr. Sittig says. “Those certification criteria are pretty general and not as comprehensive as the SAFER guides. Some SAFER guide recommendations are in existing certification requirements, like you’re supposed to have drug-drug interaction checking capabilities, and they’re supposed to be on. But it doesn’t say you need to have the patient’s identification on every screen. It’s easy to assume good software design, development, and testing principles are a given, but our experience suggests otherwise.”
Configuration problems
A handful of vendors are working on what the JAMA article suggests, but there are about 1,000 EHR developers, Dr. Sittig notes. Moreover, there are configuration problems in the design of many EHRs, even if the products have the recommended features.
“For example, it’s often possible to meet the SAFER recommendations, but not all the vendors make that the default setting. That’s one of the things our paper says they should do,” Dr. Sittig says.
Conversely, some hospitals turn off certain features because they annoy doctors, he notes. For instance, the SAFER guides recommend that allergies, problem list entries, and diagnostic test results be entered and stored using standard, coded data elements in the EHR, but often the EHR makes it easier to enter free text data.
Default settings can be wiped out during system upgrades, he added. That has happened with drug interaction checkers. “If you don’t test the system after upgrades and reassess it annually, you might go several months without your drug-drug interaction checker on. And your doctors aren’t complaining about not getting alerts. Those kinds of mistakes are hard to catch.”
Some errors in an EHR may be caught fairly quickly, but in a health system that treats thousands of patients at any given time, those mistakes can still cause a lot of potential patient harm, Dr. Sittig points out. Some vendors, he says, are building tools to help health care organizations catch those errors through what is called “anomaly detection.” This is similar to what credit card companies do when they notice you’ve bought a carpet in Saudi Arabia, although you’ve never traveled abroad, he notes.
“You can look at alert firing data and notice that all of a sudden an alert fired 500 times today when it usually fires 10 times, or it stopped firing,” Dr. Sittig observes. “Those kinds of things should be built into all EHRs. That would be an excellent step forward.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a little-noticed action last month, so as to meet an objective of the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program, starting next year.
Experts praised the move but said that EHR developers should share the responsibility for ensuring that the use of their products doesn’t harm patients.
A number of safety problems are associated with hospital EHR systems, ranging from insufficient protection against medication errors and inadvertent turnoffs of drug interaction checkers to allowing physicians to use free text instead of coded data for key patient indicators. Although hospitals aren’t required to do anything about safety problems that turn up in their self-audits, practitioners who perform the self-assessment will likely encounter challenges that they were previously unaware of and will fix them, experts say.
Studies over the past decade have shown that improper configuration and use of EHRs, as well as design flaws in the systems, can cause avoidable patient injuries or can fail to prevent them. For example, one large study found that clinical decision support (CDS) features in EHRs prevented adverse drug events (ADEs) in only 61.6% of cases in 2016. That was an improvement over the ADE prevention rate of 54% in 2009. Nevertheless, nearly 40% of ADEs were not averted.
Another study, sponsored by the Leapfrog Group, found that EHRs used in U.S. hospitals failed to detect up to 1 in 3 potentially harmful drug interactions and other medication errors. In this study, about 10% of the detection failures were attributed to design problems in EHRs.
The new CMS measure requires hospitals to evaluate their EHRs using safety guides that were developed in 2014 and were revised in 2016 by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC). Known as the Safety Assurance Factors for Resilience (SAFER) guides, they include a set of recommendations to help health care organizations optimize the safety of EHRs.
Surprises in store for hospitals
Dean Sittig, PhD, a professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization that a 2018 study he conducted with his colleague Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, found that eight surveyed health care organizations were following about 75% of the SAFER recommendations.
He said that when hospitals and health care systems start to assess their systems, many will be surprised at what they are not doing or not doing right. Although the new CMS rule doesn’t require them to correct deficiencies, he expects that many will.
For this reason, Dr. Sittig believes the requirement will have a positive effect on patient safety. But the regulation may not go far enough because it doesn’t impose any requirements on EHR vendors, he said.
In a commentary published in JAMA, Dr. Sittig and Dr. Hardeep, a professor at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, cite a study showing that 40% of “EHR-related products” had “nonconformities” with EHR certification regulations that could potentially harm patients. “Many nonconformities could have been identified by the developer prior to product release,” they say.
Shared responsibility
According to the JAMA commentary, the SAFER guides were developed “to help health care organizations and EHR developers conduct voluntary self-assessments to help eliminate or minimize EHR-related safety risks and hazards.”
In response to a query from this news organization, ONC confirmed that the SAFER guides were intended for use by developers as well as practitioners. ONC said it supports CMS’s approach to incentivize collaborations between EHR vendors and health care organizations. It noted that some entities have already teamed up to the meet the SAFER guides’ recommendations.
Hospitals and EHR developers must share responsibility for safety, Dr. Sittig and Dr. Singh argue, because many SAFER recommendations are based on EHR features that have to be programmed by developers.
For example, one recommendation is that patient identification information be displayed on all portions of the EHR user interface, wristbands, and printouts. Hospitals can’t implement this feature if the developer hasn’t built it into its product.
Dr. Sittig and Dr. Singh suggest three strategies to complement CMS’s new regulation:
- Because in their view, ONC’s EHR certification criteria are insufficient to address many patient safety concerns, CMS should require EHR developers to assess their products annually.
- ONC should conduct annual reviews of the SAFER recommendations with input from EHR developers and safety experts.
- EHR vendors should disseminate guidance to their customers on how to address safety practices, perhaps including EHR configuration guides related to safety.
Safety in EHR certification
At a recent press conference that ONC held to update reporters on its current plans, officials were asked to comment on Dr. Sittig’s and Dr. Singh’s proposition that EHR developers, as well as hospitals, do more to ensure system safety.
Steve Posnack, deputy national coordinator of health IT, noted that the ONC-supervised certification process requires developers to pay attention to how they “implement and integrate safety practices in their software design. We have certification criteria ... around what’s called safety-enhanced design – specific capabilities in the EHR that are sensitive to safety in areas like e-prescribing, medication, and high-risk events, where you want to make sure there’s more attention paid to the safety-related dynamics.”
After the conference, ONC told this news organization that among the safety-related certification criteria is one on user-centered design, which must be used in programming certain EHR features. Another is on the use of a quality management system to guide the creation of each EHR capability.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that not all EHR developers have paid sufficient attention to safety in their products. This is shown in the corporate integrity agreements with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that developers eClinicalWorks and Greenway agreed to sign because, according to the government, they had not met all of the certification criteria they’d claimed to satisfy.
Under these agreements, the vendors agreed to follow “relevant standards, checklists, self-assessment tools, and other practices identified in the ONC SAFER guides and the ICE Report(s) to optimize the safety and safe use of EHRs” in a number of specific areas.
Even if all EHRs conformed to the certification requirements for safety, they would fall short of the SAFER recommendations, Dr. Sittig says. “Those certification criteria are pretty general and not as comprehensive as the SAFER guides. Some SAFER guide recommendations are in existing certification requirements, like you’re supposed to have drug-drug interaction checking capabilities, and they’re supposed to be on. But it doesn’t say you need to have the patient’s identification on every screen. It’s easy to assume good software design, development, and testing principles are a given, but our experience suggests otherwise.”
Configuration problems
A handful of vendors are working on what the JAMA article suggests, but there are about 1,000 EHR developers, Dr. Sittig notes. Moreover, there are configuration problems in the design of many EHRs, even if the products have the recommended features.
“For example, it’s often possible to meet the SAFER recommendations, but not all the vendors make that the default setting. That’s one of the things our paper says they should do,” Dr. Sittig says.
Conversely, some hospitals turn off certain features because they annoy doctors, he notes. For instance, the SAFER guides recommend that allergies, problem list entries, and diagnostic test results be entered and stored using standard, coded data elements in the EHR, but often the EHR makes it easier to enter free text data.
Default settings can be wiped out during system upgrades, he added. That has happened with drug interaction checkers. “If you don’t test the system after upgrades and reassess it annually, you might go several months without your drug-drug interaction checker on. And your doctors aren’t complaining about not getting alerts. Those kinds of mistakes are hard to catch.”
Some errors in an EHR may be caught fairly quickly, but in a health system that treats thousands of patients at any given time, those mistakes can still cause a lot of potential patient harm, Dr. Sittig points out. Some vendors, he says, are building tools to help health care organizations catch those errors through what is called “anomaly detection.” This is similar to what credit card companies do when they notice you’ve bought a carpet in Saudi Arabia, although you’ve never traveled abroad, he notes.
“You can look at alert firing data and notice that all of a sudden an alert fired 500 times today when it usually fires 10 times, or it stopped firing,” Dr. Sittig observes. “Those kinds of things should be built into all EHRs. That would be an excellent step forward.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a little-noticed action last month, so as to meet an objective of the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program, starting next year.
Experts praised the move but said that EHR developers should share the responsibility for ensuring that the use of their products doesn’t harm patients.
A number of safety problems are associated with hospital EHR systems, ranging from insufficient protection against medication errors and inadvertent turnoffs of drug interaction checkers to allowing physicians to use free text instead of coded data for key patient indicators. Although hospitals aren’t required to do anything about safety problems that turn up in their self-audits, practitioners who perform the self-assessment will likely encounter challenges that they were previously unaware of and will fix them, experts say.
Studies over the past decade have shown that improper configuration and use of EHRs, as well as design flaws in the systems, can cause avoidable patient injuries or can fail to prevent them. For example, one large study found that clinical decision support (CDS) features in EHRs prevented adverse drug events (ADEs) in only 61.6% of cases in 2016. That was an improvement over the ADE prevention rate of 54% in 2009. Nevertheless, nearly 40% of ADEs were not averted.
Another study, sponsored by the Leapfrog Group, found that EHRs used in U.S. hospitals failed to detect up to 1 in 3 potentially harmful drug interactions and other medication errors. In this study, about 10% of the detection failures were attributed to design problems in EHRs.
The new CMS measure requires hospitals to evaluate their EHRs using safety guides that were developed in 2014 and were revised in 2016 by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC). Known as the Safety Assurance Factors for Resilience (SAFER) guides, they include a set of recommendations to help health care organizations optimize the safety of EHRs.
Surprises in store for hospitals
Dean Sittig, PhD, a professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization that a 2018 study he conducted with his colleague Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, found that eight surveyed health care organizations were following about 75% of the SAFER recommendations.
He said that when hospitals and health care systems start to assess their systems, many will be surprised at what they are not doing or not doing right. Although the new CMS rule doesn’t require them to correct deficiencies, he expects that many will.
For this reason, Dr. Sittig believes the requirement will have a positive effect on patient safety. But the regulation may not go far enough because it doesn’t impose any requirements on EHR vendors, he said.
In a commentary published in JAMA, Dr. Sittig and Dr. Hardeep, a professor at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, cite a study showing that 40% of “EHR-related products” had “nonconformities” with EHR certification regulations that could potentially harm patients. “Many nonconformities could have been identified by the developer prior to product release,” they say.
Shared responsibility
According to the JAMA commentary, the SAFER guides were developed “to help health care organizations and EHR developers conduct voluntary self-assessments to help eliminate or minimize EHR-related safety risks and hazards.”
In response to a query from this news organization, ONC confirmed that the SAFER guides were intended for use by developers as well as practitioners. ONC said it supports CMS’s approach to incentivize collaborations between EHR vendors and health care organizations. It noted that some entities have already teamed up to the meet the SAFER guides’ recommendations.
Hospitals and EHR developers must share responsibility for safety, Dr. Sittig and Dr. Singh argue, because many SAFER recommendations are based on EHR features that have to be programmed by developers.
For example, one recommendation is that patient identification information be displayed on all portions of the EHR user interface, wristbands, and printouts. Hospitals can’t implement this feature if the developer hasn’t built it into its product.
Dr. Sittig and Dr. Singh suggest three strategies to complement CMS’s new regulation:
- Because in their view, ONC’s EHR certification criteria are insufficient to address many patient safety concerns, CMS should require EHR developers to assess their products annually.
- ONC should conduct annual reviews of the SAFER recommendations with input from EHR developers and safety experts.
- EHR vendors should disseminate guidance to their customers on how to address safety practices, perhaps including EHR configuration guides related to safety.
Safety in EHR certification
At a recent press conference that ONC held to update reporters on its current plans, officials were asked to comment on Dr. Sittig’s and Dr. Singh’s proposition that EHR developers, as well as hospitals, do more to ensure system safety.
Steve Posnack, deputy national coordinator of health IT, noted that the ONC-supervised certification process requires developers to pay attention to how they “implement and integrate safety practices in their software design. We have certification criteria ... around what’s called safety-enhanced design – specific capabilities in the EHR that are sensitive to safety in areas like e-prescribing, medication, and high-risk events, where you want to make sure there’s more attention paid to the safety-related dynamics.”
After the conference, ONC told this news organization that among the safety-related certification criteria is one on user-centered design, which must be used in programming certain EHR features. Another is on the use of a quality management system to guide the creation of each EHR capability.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that not all EHR developers have paid sufficient attention to safety in their products. This is shown in the corporate integrity agreements with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that developers eClinicalWorks and Greenway agreed to sign because, according to the government, they had not met all of the certification criteria they’d claimed to satisfy.
Under these agreements, the vendors agreed to follow “relevant standards, checklists, self-assessment tools, and other practices identified in the ONC SAFER guides and the ICE Report(s) to optimize the safety and safe use of EHRs” in a number of specific areas.
Even if all EHRs conformed to the certification requirements for safety, they would fall short of the SAFER recommendations, Dr. Sittig says. “Those certification criteria are pretty general and not as comprehensive as the SAFER guides. Some SAFER guide recommendations are in existing certification requirements, like you’re supposed to have drug-drug interaction checking capabilities, and they’re supposed to be on. But it doesn’t say you need to have the patient’s identification on every screen. It’s easy to assume good software design, development, and testing principles are a given, but our experience suggests otherwise.”
Configuration problems
A handful of vendors are working on what the JAMA article suggests, but there are about 1,000 EHR developers, Dr. Sittig notes. Moreover, there are configuration problems in the design of many EHRs, even if the products have the recommended features.
“For example, it’s often possible to meet the SAFER recommendations, but not all the vendors make that the default setting. That’s one of the things our paper says they should do,” Dr. Sittig says.
Conversely, some hospitals turn off certain features because they annoy doctors, he notes. For instance, the SAFER guides recommend that allergies, problem list entries, and diagnostic test results be entered and stored using standard, coded data elements in the EHR, but often the EHR makes it easier to enter free text data.
Default settings can be wiped out during system upgrades, he added. That has happened with drug interaction checkers. “If you don’t test the system after upgrades and reassess it annually, you might go several months without your drug-drug interaction checker on. And your doctors aren’t complaining about not getting alerts. Those kinds of mistakes are hard to catch.”
Some errors in an EHR may be caught fairly quickly, but in a health system that treats thousands of patients at any given time, those mistakes can still cause a lot of potential patient harm, Dr. Sittig points out. Some vendors, he says, are building tools to help health care organizations catch those errors through what is called “anomaly detection.” This is similar to what credit card companies do when they notice you’ve bought a carpet in Saudi Arabia, although you’ve never traveled abroad, he notes.
“You can look at alert firing data and notice that all of a sudden an alert fired 500 times today when it usually fires 10 times, or it stopped firing,” Dr. Sittig observes. “Those kinds of things should be built into all EHRs. That would be an excellent step forward.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Biden vaccine mandate rule could be ready within weeks
The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.
Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.
The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.
He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.
Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.
“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.
He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.
Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.
David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.
“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.
In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.
Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.
Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.
“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.
The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.
Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.
But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.
“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.
“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”
Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.
“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.
Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.
“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.
Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.
On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.
But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.
The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.
Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.
From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.
“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.
Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.
“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.
“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.
Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.
The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.
He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.
Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.
“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.
He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.
Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.
David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.
“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.
In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.
Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.
Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.
“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.
The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.
Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.
But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.
“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.
“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”
Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.
“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.
Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.
“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.
Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.
On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.
But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.
The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.
Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.
From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.
“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.
Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.
“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.
“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.
Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.
The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.
He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.
Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.
“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.
He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.
Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.
David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.
“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.
In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.
Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.
Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.
“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.
The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.
Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.
But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.
“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.
“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”
Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.
“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.
Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.
“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.
Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.
On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.
But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.
The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.
Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.
From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.
“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.
Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.
“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.
“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Supreme Court upholds Affordable Care Act
The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate, the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.
“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”
Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.
President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.
This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.
American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.
“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”
“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.
“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”
This article was updated June 17, 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate, the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.
“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”
Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.
President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.
This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.
American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.
“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”
“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.
“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”
This article was updated June 17, 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate, the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.
“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”
Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.
President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.
This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.
American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.
“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”
“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.
“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”
This article was updated June 17, 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Visa worries intensify pandemic stress for immigrant hospitalist moms
The COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult for all hospitalists, especially those who are parents of young children. For hospitalist moms who are also immigrants working on temporary H1-B visas, this stress is exacerbated. Though each story is unique, the underlying themes are the same: Worries over visa renewals, the immigration process, family members back home, and the risk of illness, job loss, and deportation.
Supporting the family
Like all health care workers, Prasanna Palabindela, MD, a hospitalist at Jennie Stuart Health in Hopkinsville, Ky., has been worried about bringing COVID-19 home to her family, especially in the beginning. Her in-laws had just arrived from India for a visit in March 2020 when the pandemic began, everything was shut down, and her in-laws were forced to settle in for an unexpected months-long stay.
Along with her elderly in-laws, who also have chronic conditions, Dr. Palabindela had two small children to worry about – a then-5-month-old daughter and a 5-year-old son. “I was more worried about them than me,” she said. “I used to take showers before coming home and just do all precautions as much as I can. I’m glad that I did not bring COVID, so far, to the family.”
Once she could safely send her in-laws back to India, Dr. Palabindela began searching for a nanny. Daycare was out of the question because she didn’t want her children to be exposed to illness. After a long search, she found a nanny who could also help her son with virtual school. “It’s expensive, but still, my family and my family’s health is my priority,” she said.
Working on visas has caused multiple issues for Dr. Palabindela and her husband. After living in different states because of their jobs, her husband joined her in West Virginia for her residency and found a job there. When Dr. Palabindela took her current position, her husband had to quit his job in West Virginia and move with her to Kentucky for them to stay together. Unfortunately, he couldn’t find a good fit for work in Kentucky, so the couple decided to put him on her visa so they wouldn’t have to live apart.
Now Dr. Palabindela is the family’s sole breadwinner. “That means if something happens to me, I always worry what’s going to happen with my family because legally, my husband cannot work. Technically, everyone is deported back to home,” she said. Not being able to work is hard for her husband too. “It’s just so much stress in the family because he worked for 11 years,” said Dr. Palabindela.
Through all the upheavals, Dr. Palabindela has had support from all sides. Her husband has been the biggest source. “He’s my backbone. Every time, he supported me in each and every aspect,” she said. Her parents and her brothers check in on her constantly to make sure she’s staying safe. Even the chief at her hospital has played a significant role, going to bat for his physicians to ensure their safety.
Dr. Palabindela credits everyone who works with COVID-19 patients as heroes. “The nurses, the physicians, the housekeeping, respiratory therapist, speech therapist, physical therapy ... everybody has a role. Everybody is a hero,” she said. “Whoever is wearing a mask is a hero, too, because they are contributing to this community.”
Advocating for immigration reform
A lack of transparency and information in the beginning of the pandemic significantly contributed to anxiety, said Anuradha Amara, MD, MBBS, a hospitalist in Wilmington, Del. She felt that what was on the news and what was actually going on in the hospitals were quite different. Colleagues were getting sick, there wasn’t enough personal protective equipment, and planning went out the window. “It’s like a meteor hitting a place and then we start dealing with the aftermath, but we weren’t ready before,” Dr. Amara said. “We didn’t have a plan for a pandemic.”
Then there was the concern of either her or her husband, a cardiologist, getting sick and potentially losing their jobs and immigration status. “How am I going to go back to my country if I had to? What will happen to my family if I die? If I go on the ventilator? Those are the insecurities we found additional to the pandemic challenges we had,” Dr. Amara said.
Not being able to go see their family in India or have them come visit was difficult – “it was pretty bad up there,” said Dr. Amara. Fortunately, her family members in India remained safe, but there’s a very real uneasiness about returning should an emergency arise. “Should I go back and then take the risk of losing my job and losing my position and my kids are here, they’re going to school here. How do you decide that?” she asked.
One of the worst effects of her visa restrictions was not being able to help in New York when hospitals were so short-staffed, and the morgues were overflowing. “New York is 3 hours away from where I live, but I was in chains. I couldn’t help them because of these visa restrictions,” Dr. Amara said. During the emergency, the state allowed physicians from other states to practice without being licensed in New York, but immigrant physicians were not included. “Even if we wanted to, we couldn’t volunteer,” said Dr. Amara. “I have family in New York, and I was really worried. Out of compassion I wanted to help, but I couldn’t do anything.”
Before the pandemic, Dr. Amara joined in advocacy efforts for immigrant physicians through Physicians for American Healthcare Access (PAHA). “In uncertain times, like COVID, it gets worse that you’re challenged with everything on top of your health, your family, and you have to be worried about deportation,” she said. “We need to strengthen legislation. Nobody should suffer with immigration processes during an active pandemic or otherwise.”
In the United States, 28% of physicians are immigrants. Dr. Amara pointed out that these physicians go through years of expensive training with extensive background checks at every level, yet they’re classified as second preference (EB-2) workers. She believes that physicians as a group should be excluded from this category and allowed to automatically become citizens after 5 years of living in the United States and working in an underserved area.
There have been an estimated 15,000 unused green cards since 2005. And if Congress went back to 1992, there could be more than 220,000 previously unused green cards recaptured. These unused green cards are the basis behind bills H.R.2255 and S.1024, the Healthcare Workforce Resiliency Act, which has been championed by SHM and PAHA. “It will allow the frontline physicians, 15,000 of them, and 25,000 nurses, to obtain their permanent residency,” said Dr. Amara. “These are people who already applied for their permanent residencies and they’re still waiting.”
SHM has consistently advocated for the Act since it was first introduced, written multiple letters on the issue, and supported it both on and off Capitol Hill. The society says the legislation would be an “important first step toward addressing a critical shortage” in the U.S. health care system by “recognizing the vital role immigrant physicians and nurses are playing in the fight against COVID-19.”
Currently, SHM has a live action alert open for the reintroduced bill, and encourages members to contact their legislators and urge them to support the reintroduction of the Act by cosponsoring and working to pass the legislation
Dr. Amara encourages physicians to start engaging in advocacy efforts early. Though she didn’t begin participating until late in her career, she said being aware of and part of policies that affect medicine is important. If more physicians get involved, “there are so many things we can take care of,” said Dr. Amara. “The medical profession doesn’t have to be so difficult and so busy. There are ways we can make it better and I believe that. And obviously I’ll continue to work and advocate for the entire medical profession, their problems, their health and well-being, to prevent burnout.”
Making time for positivity and self-care
Sandhya Tagaram, MD, a hospitalist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester, Mass., and her husband, also a hospitalist physician, had only ever read about pandemics in books. They certainly never expected to be in the middle of one. “That was a totally different level of anxiety to work as frontline physicians with two kids under 5 years and families away back home in India,” she said.
Dr. Tagaram and her husband work opposite shifts so that one of them is always home with their two young children. “Our schedules became more challenging when the pandemic started. Between both of our schedules and with minimal childcare facilities, we managed to strike a decent work-family balance, although we experience less vacation time together. We are fortunate to have an understanding work group,” said Dr. Tagaram.
Even before COVID-19, Dr. Tagaram found working on the temporary work visa challenging. “I think the pandemic has exposed the layer of uncertainty associated with it,” she said. “It’s incredibly stressful to imagine any minor turbulence that could alter our family and work lives. As a frontline physician mom, I take pride in raising my kids and taking care of my patients. We want to serve our communities and at the same time secure our families.”
Not being able to visit family back home and travel is exceedingly difficult. Dr. Tagaram said it would be helpful if there was a separate permanent residence pathway for physicians because they play a critical role in public health and they have been an integral part of the COVID-19 pandemic response team. A separate pathway could help keep their families secure and enable them to give their best to their communities.
Amid all the anxiety, Dr. Tagaram said she and her husband realized they could not keep living with so much pressure. As parents and as physicians, they did not want their stress to leak out and affect their ability and commitment to care for their children or their patients. They decided they needed to figure out how to be positive and constructive.
“We try some daily fun activities with the kids after returning home from work,” said Dr. Tagaram. They also formed a bubble group with two other physician families so the children could interact safely. She said that it’s critical that physicians take time for themselves. “We have to cultivate a serious hobby that helps to rejuvenate and calm our busy minds,” said Dr. Tagaram.
She makes time every day to exercise and to read at least a few pages from a good book. She is also learning Carnatic music along with one of her daughters. And every month since March 2020, she has journaled about her work and what she learned so her daughters can read it someday. “These things keep me jazzed up,” she said.
The pandemic has highlighted the fact that we are all part of one global community. “Although we hail from different backgrounds, we learned that we do have some common goals of being kind and supportive to each other and to give back to our communities. Hopefully we will continue this spirit,” said Dr. Tagaram. As a physician mother, “I feel it’s a privilege and honor to take care of my family and my community.”
Soldiering on in the COVID-19 war
The uncertainty everyone felt at the beginning of the pandemic was “very, very scary,” said Mamtha Balla, MD, MPH, a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor in northwest Ohio. “Initially, I was so involved in it and I felt like it was like a war, a COVID-19 war, and we are soldiers in that and trying to protect and do whatever we can.”
She and her husband, a geriatrician also working on an H-1B visa, have worked hard not to bring the virus home to their 2-year-old daughter. Going into 2021, the past 2 years have been “the most hectic and emotionally draining – and physically exhausting – years of my life,” said Dr. Balla.
The COVID-19 vaccine has helped reduce some pressure, but Dr. Balla is still concerned about the high risk to health care workers and the new COVID-19 strains coming out. “We are really not sure what we are dealing with and how the COVID will calm,” she said. “It is pretty challenging being a health care worker because not only are you responsible for your patients at the end of the day, but you are also responsible for your families.”
Initially in the United States from India on a student visa in 2008, Dr. Balla was placed on an H-1B visa when she started her residency. It was during this time that her mother was diagnosed with cancer and went through surgeries and chemotherapy. “She was pretty ill,” recalled Dr. Balla.
Despite the situation, Dr. Balla was afraid to go stay with her mother in case her visa application was rejected, and she couldn’t complete her third year of education. “I opted not to go to India at that time because I did not want to take a chance,” Dr. Balla said. “I have tears in my eyes because those are not easy moments, to withhold from seeing your parents, or to be in any other emergency where you cannot travel. That especially puts us at a higher risk emotionally and physically.”
She has not seen her parents in 2½ years. Between the very real possibility of not being able to get her visa stamp and the unpredictability of how other countries are dealing with COVID-19, Dr. Balla feels it is impossible to even think of going to visit. “Even if I go, what if something happens where my visa gets stuck, or the visa office is not open?” she said. If she could not get back to the United States as planned, she would have patients left behind here.
Recently, Dr. Balla did travel to India and her passport stamp did not come on time, so her husband had to come back to the United States by himself. She had to wait for her stamp for a couple more weeks before she could leave and, in the meantime, had to make arrangements at her hospital. “It is so much trauma,” she said.
There’s also the worry she has about getting sick or disabled and not being able to work anymore, resulting in deportation. “Is that what we are doing for people who are working like soldiers? Are we really treating them the correct way?” Dr. Balla asked.
Dr. Balla considers all health care workers to be soldiers in the COVID-19 war. As such, she believes the government should step up to make sure they are supporting and helping these immigrant physician-soldiers who are so necessary. She applauds France’s recent decision to grant citizenship to its frontline immigrant health care workers and feels that the same should be done in the United States. She filed her green card application in 2012, but she is nowhere close to getting it. (The backlog for employment-based green cards is more than 900,000 now.)
As people putting their own and their family’s lives at risk to care for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Balla and her husband have talked about moving to another country or even back to India. “I am a taxpayer; I am a good human being working for the community and for the job. This is my 13th year here. If I am not eligible [for citizenship] still, then I am not sure what else I have to do to prove myself,” she said. “I am owning United States citizens as my people, so please own us and help us out in this difficult scenario.”
The COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult for all hospitalists, especially those who are parents of young children. For hospitalist moms who are also immigrants working on temporary H1-B visas, this stress is exacerbated. Though each story is unique, the underlying themes are the same: Worries over visa renewals, the immigration process, family members back home, and the risk of illness, job loss, and deportation.
Supporting the family
Like all health care workers, Prasanna Palabindela, MD, a hospitalist at Jennie Stuart Health in Hopkinsville, Ky., has been worried about bringing COVID-19 home to her family, especially in the beginning. Her in-laws had just arrived from India for a visit in March 2020 when the pandemic began, everything was shut down, and her in-laws were forced to settle in for an unexpected months-long stay.
Along with her elderly in-laws, who also have chronic conditions, Dr. Palabindela had two small children to worry about – a then-5-month-old daughter and a 5-year-old son. “I was more worried about them than me,” she said. “I used to take showers before coming home and just do all precautions as much as I can. I’m glad that I did not bring COVID, so far, to the family.”
Once she could safely send her in-laws back to India, Dr. Palabindela began searching for a nanny. Daycare was out of the question because she didn’t want her children to be exposed to illness. After a long search, she found a nanny who could also help her son with virtual school. “It’s expensive, but still, my family and my family’s health is my priority,” she said.
Working on visas has caused multiple issues for Dr. Palabindela and her husband. After living in different states because of their jobs, her husband joined her in West Virginia for her residency and found a job there. When Dr. Palabindela took her current position, her husband had to quit his job in West Virginia and move with her to Kentucky for them to stay together. Unfortunately, he couldn’t find a good fit for work in Kentucky, so the couple decided to put him on her visa so they wouldn’t have to live apart.
Now Dr. Palabindela is the family’s sole breadwinner. “That means if something happens to me, I always worry what’s going to happen with my family because legally, my husband cannot work. Technically, everyone is deported back to home,” she said. Not being able to work is hard for her husband too. “It’s just so much stress in the family because he worked for 11 years,” said Dr. Palabindela.
Through all the upheavals, Dr. Palabindela has had support from all sides. Her husband has been the biggest source. “He’s my backbone. Every time, he supported me in each and every aspect,” she said. Her parents and her brothers check in on her constantly to make sure she’s staying safe. Even the chief at her hospital has played a significant role, going to bat for his physicians to ensure their safety.
Dr. Palabindela credits everyone who works with COVID-19 patients as heroes. “The nurses, the physicians, the housekeeping, respiratory therapist, speech therapist, physical therapy ... everybody has a role. Everybody is a hero,” she said. “Whoever is wearing a mask is a hero, too, because they are contributing to this community.”
Advocating for immigration reform
A lack of transparency and information in the beginning of the pandemic significantly contributed to anxiety, said Anuradha Amara, MD, MBBS, a hospitalist in Wilmington, Del. She felt that what was on the news and what was actually going on in the hospitals were quite different. Colleagues were getting sick, there wasn’t enough personal protective equipment, and planning went out the window. “It’s like a meteor hitting a place and then we start dealing with the aftermath, but we weren’t ready before,” Dr. Amara said. “We didn’t have a plan for a pandemic.”
Then there was the concern of either her or her husband, a cardiologist, getting sick and potentially losing their jobs and immigration status. “How am I going to go back to my country if I had to? What will happen to my family if I die? If I go on the ventilator? Those are the insecurities we found additional to the pandemic challenges we had,” Dr. Amara said.
Not being able to go see their family in India or have them come visit was difficult – “it was pretty bad up there,” said Dr. Amara. Fortunately, her family members in India remained safe, but there’s a very real uneasiness about returning should an emergency arise. “Should I go back and then take the risk of losing my job and losing my position and my kids are here, they’re going to school here. How do you decide that?” she asked.
One of the worst effects of her visa restrictions was not being able to help in New York when hospitals were so short-staffed, and the morgues were overflowing. “New York is 3 hours away from where I live, but I was in chains. I couldn’t help them because of these visa restrictions,” Dr. Amara said. During the emergency, the state allowed physicians from other states to practice without being licensed in New York, but immigrant physicians were not included. “Even if we wanted to, we couldn’t volunteer,” said Dr. Amara. “I have family in New York, and I was really worried. Out of compassion I wanted to help, but I couldn’t do anything.”
Before the pandemic, Dr. Amara joined in advocacy efforts for immigrant physicians through Physicians for American Healthcare Access (PAHA). “In uncertain times, like COVID, it gets worse that you’re challenged with everything on top of your health, your family, and you have to be worried about deportation,” she said. “We need to strengthen legislation. Nobody should suffer with immigration processes during an active pandemic or otherwise.”
In the United States, 28% of physicians are immigrants. Dr. Amara pointed out that these physicians go through years of expensive training with extensive background checks at every level, yet they’re classified as second preference (EB-2) workers. She believes that physicians as a group should be excluded from this category and allowed to automatically become citizens after 5 years of living in the United States and working in an underserved area.
There have been an estimated 15,000 unused green cards since 2005. And if Congress went back to 1992, there could be more than 220,000 previously unused green cards recaptured. These unused green cards are the basis behind bills H.R.2255 and S.1024, the Healthcare Workforce Resiliency Act, which has been championed by SHM and PAHA. “It will allow the frontline physicians, 15,000 of them, and 25,000 nurses, to obtain their permanent residency,” said Dr. Amara. “These are people who already applied for their permanent residencies and they’re still waiting.”
SHM has consistently advocated for the Act since it was first introduced, written multiple letters on the issue, and supported it both on and off Capitol Hill. The society says the legislation would be an “important first step toward addressing a critical shortage” in the U.S. health care system by “recognizing the vital role immigrant physicians and nurses are playing in the fight against COVID-19.”
Currently, SHM has a live action alert open for the reintroduced bill, and encourages members to contact their legislators and urge them to support the reintroduction of the Act by cosponsoring and working to pass the legislation
Dr. Amara encourages physicians to start engaging in advocacy efforts early. Though she didn’t begin participating until late in her career, she said being aware of and part of policies that affect medicine is important. If more physicians get involved, “there are so many things we can take care of,” said Dr. Amara. “The medical profession doesn’t have to be so difficult and so busy. There are ways we can make it better and I believe that. And obviously I’ll continue to work and advocate for the entire medical profession, their problems, their health and well-being, to prevent burnout.”
Making time for positivity and self-care
Sandhya Tagaram, MD, a hospitalist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester, Mass., and her husband, also a hospitalist physician, had only ever read about pandemics in books. They certainly never expected to be in the middle of one. “That was a totally different level of anxiety to work as frontline physicians with two kids under 5 years and families away back home in India,” she said.
Dr. Tagaram and her husband work opposite shifts so that one of them is always home with their two young children. “Our schedules became more challenging when the pandemic started. Between both of our schedules and with minimal childcare facilities, we managed to strike a decent work-family balance, although we experience less vacation time together. We are fortunate to have an understanding work group,” said Dr. Tagaram.
Even before COVID-19, Dr. Tagaram found working on the temporary work visa challenging. “I think the pandemic has exposed the layer of uncertainty associated with it,” she said. “It’s incredibly stressful to imagine any minor turbulence that could alter our family and work lives. As a frontline physician mom, I take pride in raising my kids and taking care of my patients. We want to serve our communities and at the same time secure our families.”
Not being able to visit family back home and travel is exceedingly difficult. Dr. Tagaram said it would be helpful if there was a separate permanent residence pathway for physicians because they play a critical role in public health and they have been an integral part of the COVID-19 pandemic response team. A separate pathway could help keep their families secure and enable them to give their best to their communities.
Amid all the anxiety, Dr. Tagaram said she and her husband realized they could not keep living with so much pressure. As parents and as physicians, they did not want their stress to leak out and affect their ability and commitment to care for their children or their patients. They decided they needed to figure out how to be positive and constructive.
“We try some daily fun activities with the kids after returning home from work,” said Dr. Tagaram. They also formed a bubble group with two other physician families so the children could interact safely. She said that it’s critical that physicians take time for themselves. “We have to cultivate a serious hobby that helps to rejuvenate and calm our busy minds,” said Dr. Tagaram.
She makes time every day to exercise and to read at least a few pages from a good book. She is also learning Carnatic music along with one of her daughters. And every month since March 2020, she has journaled about her work and what she learned so her daughters can read it someday. “These things keep me jazzed up,” she said.
The pandemic has highlighted the fact that we are all part of one global community. “Although we hail from different backgrounds, we learned that we do have some common goals of being kind and supportive to each other and to give back to our communities. Hopefully we will continue this spirit,” said Dr. Tagaram. As a physician mother, “I feel it’s a privilege and honor to take care of my family and my community.”
Soldiering on in the COVID-19 war
The uncertainty everyone felt at the beginning of the pandemic was “very, very scary,” said Mamtha Balla, MD, MPH, a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor in northwest Ohio. “Initially, I was so involved in it and I felt like it was like a war, a COVID-19 war, and we are soldiers in that and trying to protect and do whatever we can.”
She and her husband, a geriatrician also working on an H-1B visa, have worked hard not to bring the virus home to their 2-year-old daughter. Going into 2021, the past 2 years have been “the most hectic and emotionally draining – and physically exhausting – years of my life,” said Dr. Balla.
The COVID-19 vaccine has helped reduce some pressure, but Dr. Balla is still concerned about the high risk to health care workers and the new COVID-19 strains coming out. “We are really not sure what we are dealing with and how the COVID will calm,” she said. “It is pretty challenging being a health care worker because not only are you responsible for your patients at the end of the day, but you are also responsible for your families.”
Initially in the United States from India on a student visa in 2008, Dr. Balla was placed on an H-1B visa when she started her residency. It was during this time that her mother was diagnosed with cancer and went through surgeries and chemotherapy. “She was pretty ill,” recalled Dr. Balla.
Despite the situation, Dr. Balla was afraid to go stay with her mother in case her visa application was rejected, and she couldn’t complete her third year of education. “I opted not to go to India at that time because I did not want to take a chance,” Dr. Balla said. “I have tears in my eyes because those are not easy moments, to withhold from seeing your parents, or to be in any other emergency where you cannot travel. That especially puts us at a higher risk emotionally and physically.”
She has not seen her parents in 2½ years. Between the very real possibility of not being able to get her visa stamp and the unpredictability of how other countries are dealing with COVID-19, Dr. Balla feels it is impossible to even think of going to visit. “Even if I go, what if something happens where my visa gets stuck, or the visa office is not open?” she said. If she could not get back to the United States as planned, she would have patients left behind here.
Recently, Dr. Balla did travel to India and her passport stamp did not come on time, so her husband had to come back to the United States by himself. She had to wait for her stamp for a couple more weeks before she could leave and, in the meantime, had to make arrangements at her hospital. “It is so much trauma,” she said.
There’s also the worry she has about getting sick or disabled and not being able to work anymore, resulting in deportation. “Is that what we are doing for people who are working like soldiers? Are we really treating them the correct way?” Dr. Balla asked.
Dr. Balla considers all health care workers to be soldiers in the COVID-19 war. As such, she believes the government should step up to make sure they are supporting and helping these immigrant physician-soldiers who are so necessary. She applauds France’s recent decision to grant citizenship to its frontline immigrant health care workers and feels that the same should be done in the United States. She filed her green card application in 2012, but she is nowhere close to getting it. (The backlog for employment-based green cards is more than 900,000 now.)
As people putting their own and their family’s lives at risk to care for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Balla and her husband have talked about moving to another country or even back to India. “I am a taxpayer; I am a good human being working for the community and for the job. This is my 13th year here. If I am not eligible [for citizenship] still, then I am not sure what else I have to do to prove myself,” she said. “I am owning United States citizens as my people, so please own us and help us out in this difficult scenario.”
The COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult for all hospitalists, especially those who are parents of young children. For hospitalist moms who are also immigrants working on temporary H1-B visas, this stress is exacerbated. Though each story is unique, the underlying themes are the same: Worries over visa renewals, the immigration process, family members back home, and the risk of illness, job loss, and deportation.
Supporting the family
Like all health care workers, Prasanna Palabindela, MD, a hospitalist at Jennie Stuart Health in Hopkinsville, Ky., has been worried about bringing COVID-19 home to her family, especially in the beginning. Her in-laws had just arrived from India for a visit in March 2020 when the pandemic began, everything was shut down, and her in-laws were forced to settle in for an unexpected months-long stay.
Along with her elderly in-laws, who also have chronic conditions, Dr. Palabindela had two small children to worry about – a then-5-month-old daughter and a 5-year-old son. “I was more worried about them than me,” she said. “I used to take showers before coming home and just do all precautions as much as I can. I’m glad that I did not bring COVID, so far, to the family.”
Once she could safely send her in-laws back to India, Dr. Palabindela began searching for a nanny. Daycare was out of the question because she didn’t want her children to be exposed to illness. After a long search, she found a nanny who could also help her son with virtual school. “It’s expensive, but still, my family and my family’s health is my priority,” she said.
Working on visas has caused multiple issues for Dr. Palabindela and her husband. After living in different states because of their jobs, her husband joined her in West Virginia for her residency and found a job there. When Dr. Palabindela took her current position, her husband had to quit his job in West Virginia and move with her to Kentucky for them to stay together. Unfortunately, he couldn’t find a good fit for work in Kentucky, so the couple decided to put him on her visa so they wouldn’t have to live apart.
Now Dr. Palabindela is the family’s sole breadwinner. “That means if something happens to me, I always worry what’s going to happen with my family because legally, my husband cannot work. Technically, everyone is deported back to home,” she said. Not being able to work is hard for her husband too. “It’s just so much stress in the family because he worked for 11 years,” said Dr. Palabindela.
Through all the upheavals, Dr. Palabindela has had support from all sides. Her husband has been the biggest source. “He’s my backbone. Every time, he supported me in each and every aspect,” she said. Her parents and her brothers check in on her constantly to make sure she’s staying safe. Even the chief at her hospital has played a significant role, going to bat for his physicians to ensure their safety.
Dr. Palabindela credits everyone who works with COVID-19 patients as heroes. “The nurses, the physicians, the housekeeping, respiratory therapist, speech therapist, physical therapy ... everybody has a role. Everybody is a hero,” she said. “Whoever is wearing a mask is a hero, too, because they are contributing to this community.”
Advocating for immigration reform
A lack of transparency and information in the beginning of the pandemic significantly contributed to anxiety, said Anuradha Amara, MD, MBBS, a hospitalist in Wilmington, Del. She felt that what was on the news and what was actually going on in the hospitals were quite different. Colleagues were getting sick, there wasn’t enough personal protective equipment, and planning went out the window. “It’s like a meteor hitting a place and then we start dealing with the aftermath, but we weren’t ready before,” Dr. Amara said. “We didn’t have a plan for a pandemic.”
Then there was the concern of either her or her husband, a cardiologist, getting sick and potentially losing their jobs and immigration status. “How am I going to go back to my country if I had to? What will happen to my family if I die? If I go on the ventilator? Those are the insecurities we found additional to the pandemic challenges we had,” Dr. Amara said.
Not being able to go see their family in India or have them come visit was difficult – “it was pretty bad up there,” said Dr. Amara. Fortunately, her family members in India remained safe, but there’s a very real uneasiness about returning should an emergency arise. “Should I go back and then take the risk of losing my job and losing my position and my kids are here, they’re going to school here. How do you decide that?” she asked.
One of the worst effects of her visa restrictions was not being able to help in New York when hospitals were so short-staffed, and the morgues were overflowing. “New York is 3 hours away from where I live, but I was in chains. I couldn’t help them because of these visa restrictions,” Dr. Amara said. During the emergency, the state allowed physicians from other states to practice without being licensed in New York, but immigrant physicians were not included. “Even if we wanted to, we couldn’t volunteer,” said Dr. Amara. “I have family in New York, and I was really worried. Out of compassion I wanted to help, but I couldn’t do anything.”
Before the pandemic, Dr. Amara joined in advocacy efforts for immigrant physicians through Physicians for American Healthcare Access (PAHA). “In uncertain times, like COVID, it gets worse that you’re challenged with everything on top of your health, your family, and you have to be worried about deportation,” she said. “We need to strengthen legislation. Nobody should suffer with immigration processes during an active pandemic or otherwise.”
In the United States, 28% of physicians are immigrants. Dr. Amara pointed out that these physicians go through years of expensive training with extensive background checks at every level, yet they’re classified as second preference (EB-2) workers. She believes that physicians as a group should be excluded from this category and allowed to automatically become citizens after 5 years of living in the United States and working in an underserved area.
There have been an estimated 15,000 unused green cards since 2005. And if Congress went back to 1992, there could be more than 220,000 previously unused green cards recaptured. These unused green cards are the basis behind bills H.R.2255 and S.1024, the Healthcare Workforce Resiliency Act, which has been championed by SHM and PAHA. “It will allow the frontline physicians, 15,000 of them, and 25,000 nurses, to obtain their permanent residency,” said Dr. Amara. “These are people who already applied for their permanent residencies and they’re still waiting.”
SHM has consistently advocated for the Act since it was first introduced, written multiple letters on the issue, and supported it both on and off Capitol Hill. The society says the legislation would be an “important first step toward addressing a critical shortage” in the U.S. health care system by “recognizing the vital role immigrant physicians and nurses are playing in the fight against COVID-19.”
Currently, SHM has a live action alert open for the reintroduced bill, and encourages members to contact their legislators and urge them to support the reintroduction of the Act by cosponsoring and working to pass the legislation
Dr. Amara encourages physicians to start engaging in advocacy efforts early. Though she didn’t begin participating until late in her career, she said being aware of and part of policies that affect medicine is important. If more physicians get involved, “there are so many things we can take care of,” said Dr. Amara. “The medical profession doesn’t have to be so difficult and so busy. There are ways we can make it better and I believe that. And obviously I’ll continue to work and advocate for the entire medical profession, their problems, their health and well-being, to prevent burnout.”
Making time for positivity and self-care
Sandhya Tagaram, MD, a hospitalist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester, Mass., and her husband, also a hospitalist physician, had only ever read about pandemics in books. They certainly never expected to be in the middle of one. “That was a totally different level of anxiety to work as frontline physicians with two kids under 5 years and families away back home in India,” she said.
Dr. Tagaram and her husband work opposite shifts so that one of them is always home with their two young children. “Our schedules became more challenging when the pandemic started. Between both of our schedules and with minimal childcare facilities, we managed to strike a decent work-family balance, although we experience less vacation time together. We are fortunate to have an understanding work group,” said Dr. Tagaram.
Even before COVID-19, Dr. Tagaram found working on the temporary work visa challenging. “I think the pandemic has exposed the layer of uncertainty associated with it,” she said. “It’s incredibly stressful to imagine any minor turbulence that could alter our family and work lives. As a frontline physician mom, I take pride in raising my kids and taking care of my patients. We want to serve our communities and at the same time secure our families.”
Not being able to visit family back home and travel is exceedingly difficult. Dr. Tagaram said it would be helpful if there was a separate permanent residence pathway for physicians because they play a critical role in public health and they have been an integral part of the COVID-19 pandemic response team. A separate pathway could help keep their families secure and enable them to give their best to their communities.
Amid all the anxiety, Dr. Tagaram said she and her husband realized they could not keep living with so much pressure. As parents and as physicians, they did not want their stress to leak out and affect their ability and commitment to care for their children or their patients. They decided they needed to figure out how to be positive and constructive.
“We try some daily fun activities with the kids after returning home from work,” said Dr. Tagaram. They also formed a bubble group with two other physician families so the children could interact safely. She said that it’s critical that physicians take time for themselves. “We have to cultivate a serious hobby that helps to rejuvenate and calm our busy minds,” said Dr. Tagaram.
She makes time every day to exercise and to read at least a few pages from a good book. She is also learning Carnatic music along with one of her daughters. And every month since March 2020, she has journaled about her work and what she learned so her daughters can read it someday. “These things keep me jazzed up,” she said.
The pandemic has highlighted the fact that we are all part of one global community. “Although we hail from different backgrounds, we learned that we do have some common goals of being kind and supportive to each other and to give back to our communities. Hopefully we will continue this spirit,” said Dr. Tagaram. As a physician mother, “I feel it’s a privilege and honor to take care of my family and my community.”
Soldiering on in the COVID-19 war
The uncertainty everyone felt at the beginning of the pandemic was “very, very scary,” said Mamtha Balla, MD, MPH, a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor in northwest Ohio. “Initially, I was so involved in it and I felt like it was like a war, a COVID-19 war, and we are soldiers in that and trying to protect and do whatever we can.”
She and her husband, a geriatrician also working on an H-1B visa, have worked hard not to bring the virus home to their 2-year-old daughter. Going into 2021, the past 2 years have been “the most hectic and emotionally draining – and physically exhausting – years of my life,” said Dr. Balla.
The COVID-19 vaccine has helped reduce some pressure, but Dr. Balla is still concerned about the high risk to health care workers and the new COVID-19 strains coming out. “We are really not sure what we are dealing with and how the COVID will calm,” she said. “It is pretty challenging being a health care worker because not only are you responsible for your patients at the end of the day, but you are also responsible for your families.”
Initially in the United States from India on a student visa in 2008, Dr. Balla was placed on an H-1B visa when she started her residency. It was during this time that her mother was diagnosed with cancer and went through surgeries and chemotherapy. “She was pretty ill,” recalled Dr. Balla.
Despite the situation, Dr. Balla was afraid to go stay with her mother in case her visa application was rejected, and she couldn’t complete her third year of education. “I opted not to go to India at that time because I did not want to take a chance,” Dr. Balla said. “I have tears in my eyes because those are not easy moments, to withhold from seeing your parents, or to be in any other emergency where you cannot travel. That especially puts us at a higher risk emotionally and physically.”
She has not seen her parents in 2½ years. Between the very real possibility of not being able to get her visa stamp and the unpredictability of how other countries are dealing with COVID-19, Dr. Balla feels it is impossible to even think of going to visit. “Even if I go, what if something happens where my visa gets stuck, or the visa office is not open?” she said. If she could not get back to the United States as planned, she would have patients left behind here.
Recently, Dr. Balla did travel to India and her passport stamp did not come on time, so her husband had to come back to the United States by himself. She had to wait for her stamp for a couple more weeks before she could leave and, in the meantime, had to make arrangements at her hospital. “It is so much trauma,” she said.
There’s also the worry she has about getting sick or disabled and not being able to work anymore, resulting in deportation. “Is that what we are doing for people who are working like soldiers? Are we really treating them the correct way?” Dr. Balla asked.
Dr. Balla considers all health care workers to be soldiers in the COVID-19 war. As such, she believes the government should step up to make sure they are supporting and helping these immigrant physician-soldiers who are so necessary. She applauds France’s recent decision to grant citizenship to its frontline immigrant health care workers and feels that the same should be done in the United States. She filed her green card application in 2012, but she is nowhere close to getting it. (The backlog for employment-based green cards is more than 900,000 now.)
As people putting their own and their family’s lives at risk to care for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Balla and her husband have talked about moving to another country or even back to India. “I am a taxpayer; I am a good human being working for the community and for the job. This is my 13th year here. If I am not eligible [for citizenship] still, then I am not sure what else I have to do to prove myself,” she said. “I am owning United States citizens as my people, so please own us and help us out in this difficult scenario.”
Hospital admissions of nursing home patients declined after ACA quality initiatives
Background: Following the ACA’s implementation, several measures were introduced to reduce unnecessary admissions of long-term nursing home residents to hospitals. These measures included an initiative to enhance a nursing home’s on-site capability to handle target populations; the accountable care organization payment model; and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.
Study design: Cross-sectional study using the claims-based nationwide Minimum Data Set during 2011-2016.
Setting: Federally licensed nursing homes in the United States.
Synopsis: The authors examined the number of transfers between federally funded nursing homes and the hospital settings (EDs, observation, or inpatient hospitalizations) for greater than 460,000 long term–stay patients with advanced dementia, advanced heart failure, and/or advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A risk-adjusted model showed that, during 2011-2016, there were significant decreases in transfers rates for potentially avoidable conditions, measured as the mean number of transfers per person-year alive, for patients with advanced dementia (2.4 vs. 1.6), heart failure (8.5 vs. 6.7), and COPD (7.8 vs 5.5). Most of this decrease was linked to reductions in acute hospitalizations. Notably, hospice enrollment remained low throughout this time period, despite a high 1-year mortality.
Bottom line: During the 2011-2016 period, transfer rates for patients with advanced dementia, heart failure, and/or COPD from nursing homes to the hospital setting decreased.
Citation: McCarthy EP et al. Hospital transfer rates among U.S. nursing home residents with advanced illness before and after initiatives to reduce hospitalizations. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Dec 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6130.
Dr. Cool is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
Background: Following the ACA’s implementation, several measures were introduced to reduce unnecessary admissions of long-term nursing home residents to hospitals. These measures included an initiative to enhance a nursing home’s on-site capability to handle target populations; the accountable care organization payment model; and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.
Study design: Cross-sectional study using the claims-based nationwide Minimum Data Set during 2011-2016.
Setting: Federally licensed nursing homes in the United States.
Synopsis: The authors examined the number of transfers between federally funded nursing homes and the hospital settings (EDs, observation, or inpatient hospitalizations) for greater than 460,000 long term–stay patients with advanced dementia, advanced heart failure, and/or advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A risk-adjusted model showed that, during 2011-2016, there were significant decreases in transfers rates for potentially avoidable conditions, measured as the mean number of transfers per person-year alive, for patients with advanced dementia (2.4 vs. 1.6), heart failure (8.5 vs. 6.7), and COPD (7.8 vs 5.5). Most of this decrease was linked to reductions in acute hospitalizations. Notably, hospice enrollment remained low throughout this time period, despite a high 1-year mortality.
Bottom line: During the 2011-2016 period, transfer rates for patients with advanced dementia, heart failure, and/or COPD from nursing homes to the hospital setting decreased.
Citation: McCarthy EP et al. Hospital transfer rates among U.S. nursing home residents with advanced illness before and after initiatives to reduce hospitalizations. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Dec 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6130.
Dr. Cool is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
Background: Following the ACA’s implementation, several measures were introduced to reduce unnecessary admissions of long-term nursing home residents to hospitals. These measures included an initiative to enhance a nursing home’s on-site capability to handle target populations; the accountable care organization payment model; and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.
Study design: Cross-sectional study using the claims-based nationwide Minimum Data Set during 2011-2016.
Setting: Federally licensed nursing homes in the United States.
Synopsis: The authors examined the number of transfers between federally funded nursing homes and the hospital settings (EDs, observation, or inpatient hospitalizations) for greater than 460,000 long term–stay patients with advanced dementia, advanced heart failure, and/or advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A risk-adjusted model showed that, during 2011-2016, there were significant decreases in transfers rates for potentially avoidable conditions, measured as the mean number of transfers per person-year alive, for patients with advanced dementia (2.4 vs. 1.6), heart failure (8.5 vs. 6.7), and COPD (7.8 vs 5.5). Most of this decrease was linked to reductions in acute hospitalizations. Notably, hospice enrollment remained low throughout this time period, despite a high 1-year mortality.
Bottom line: During the 2011-2016 period, transfer rates for patients with advanced dementia, heart failure, and/or COPD from nursing homes to the hospital setting decreased.
Citation: McCarthy EP et al. Hospital transfer rates among U.S. nursing home residents with advanced illness before and after initiatives to reduce hospitalizations. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Dec 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6130.
Dr. Cool is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
Clinician well-being a top priority, Surgeon General says
Clinicians’ well-being is a “crisis” of grave import to the public health and a top issue that he hopes to get more squarely on the public radar screen, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, said May 6 in a “fireside chat” with SHM president Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSRC, SFHM, at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
“This is a crisis that I don’t know that the country recognizes is fully important,” Dr. Murthy said. “I don’t think that most people in the public recognize just how extraordinarily difficult it is, for many clinicians, to come to practice. And if the clinicians continue to burn out at the rate that they are – in addition to the humanitarian crisis of people who are struggling that we should all feel concern about – it will impact care in a profound way.” He said part of his plan is a “national agenda” for clinician well-being, with a clear pathway for creating an environment more conducive to providing quality patient care.
Dr. Scheurer said that this was “welcome news and wonderful to hear.”
“Fortunately or unfortunately, now I do think it’s more in the front seat,” she said, adding that “this notion of ‘heal thyself,’ we know doesn’t work and these are really systemic ailments that we all have to tackle together.”
Dr. Murthy, a hospitalist by training, recently began his second term as Surgeon General, having served under President Obama and appointed to the post again by President Biden. This second appointment is different in the knowledge he has about the job from the start, in the enormity of the public health challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and in the political tenor of the country.
He said one of his main priorities is to “recenter our public health response” with scientists and public health leaders regaining their proper role.
“Have them be the voices that are actually speaking directly to the public, not in a way that’s biased by the politics or by politicians, but it’s really guided again by the science and substance of what we know needs to happen,” he said.
The response to COVID goes beyond continuing an aggressive vaccination and testing campaign, he said. The pandemic has given rise to worse mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, substance use disorders, and delays in care for other medical conditions for fear of infection – and these are all priorities, Dr. Murthy said.
One “silver lining” of the pandemic is the expansion of telehealth, but this needs refining and persistence to make it work optimally for all patients, he said.
“We have to ensure that that expansion continues and that it’s even – meaning that there are so many parts of the country where broadband access is a challenge for patients, so they don’t have the benefits of telemedicine,” he said. “We also need to ensure that these systems are integrated across our current systems, across hospitals so that we’re not creating more work for clinicians when it comes to utilizing this technology to reach their patients.”
Clinicians – typically viewed as coming to Capitol Hill only to push for higher payment or changes to medical liability laws – need to use their trusted voices to raise the profile of preventive care and identifying and fixing social barriers related to health, such as transportation issues and unsafe neighborhoods, Dr. Murthy said.
“No one really celebrates the heart attack that was prevented or the asthma that was prevented – we celebrate the illness that took place and was cured,” he said. “We know as clinicians that if you really want to reduce human suffering that you have to focus on the prevention side of the house, and I think that unless our colleagues in medicine and in public health come together and advocate for greater investments in prevention, or a national agenda around prevention, my worry is that it won’t naturally develop.”
On vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Murthy said that the United States needs to work more in increasing confidence that the vaccines will work, and in access to vaccines, but, mostly, in motivation.
“What we’ve learned is that ultimately trusted voices are what make all the difference when it comes to vaccination,” he said. “It’s one of these large, people-powered movements that we have to build in our community.”
Dr. Scheurer noted that, with hospitalists in 90% of U.S. hospitals, they can play a big role. “If we can all do our part then we’ll at least take the ball further down the field.”
Dr. Murthy added that, since residency, when he cared for young cancer patients near his own age, he has focused on “finding meaning now” in his work and life. The pandemic has reinforced this, and he doesn’t necessarily want life to go back to exactly how it was before the pandemic.
“Many of us are thinking – ‘Is there actually a better way for us to live our lives and design our workdays and our choices other than what we were doing prepandemic? Can we center our lives more around the people we love and care about, can we design our work to accommodate our family as opposed to the other way around, to always make our families accommodate our work?’ – These are the kinds of choices that we have to make as a society.”
Clinicians’ well-being is a “crisis” of grave import to the public health and a top issue that he hopes to get more squarely on the public radar screen, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, said May 6 in a “fireside chat” with SHM president Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSRC, SFHM, at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
“This is a crisis that I don’t know that the country recognizes is fully important,” Dr. Murthy said. “I don’t think that most people in the public recognize just how extraordinarily difficult it is, for many clinicians, to come to practice. And if the clinicians continue to burn out at the rate that they are – in addition to the humanitarian crisis of people who are struggling that we should all feel concern about – it will impact care in a profound way.” He said part of his plan is a “national agenda” for clinician well-being, with a clear pathway for creating an environment more conducive to providing quality patient care.
Dr. Scheurer said that this was “welcome news and wonderful to hear.”
“Fortunately or unfortunately, now I do think it’s more in the front seat,” she said, adding that “this notion of ‘heal thyself,’ we know doesn’t work and these are really systemic ailments that we all have to tackle together.”
Dr. Murthy, a hospitalist by training, recently began his second term as Surgeon General, having served under President Obama and appointed to the post again by President Biden. This second appointment is different in the knowledge he has about the job from the start, in the enormity of the public health challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and in the political tenor of the country.
He said one of his main priorities is to “recenter our public health response” with scientists and public health leaders regaining their proper role.
“Have them be the voices that are actually speaking directly to the public, not in a way that’s biased by the politics or by politicians, but it’s really guided again by the science and substance of what we know needs to happen,” he said.
The response to COVID goes beyond continuing an aggressive vaccination and testing campaign, he said. The pandemic has given rise to worse mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, substance use disorders, and delays in care for other medical conditions for fear of infection – and these are all priorities, Dr. Murthy said.
One “silver lining” of the pandemic is the expansion of telehealth, but this needs refining and persistence to make it work optimally for all patients, he said.
“We have to ensure that that expansion continues and that it’s even – meaning that there are so many parts of the country where broadband access is a challenge for patients, so they don’t have the benefits of telemedicine,” he said. “We also need to ensure that these systems are integrated across our current systems, across hospitals so that we’re not creating more work for clinicians when it comes to utilizing this technology to reach their patients.”
Clinicians – typically viewed as coming to Capitol Hill only to push for higher payment or changes to medical liability laws – need to use their trusted voices to raise the profile of preventive care and identifying and fixing social barriers related to health, such as transportation issues and unsafe neighborhoods, Dr. Murthy said.
“No one really celebrates the heart attack that was prevented or the asthma that was prevented – we celebrate the illness that took place and was cured,” he said. “We know as clinicians that if you really want to reduce human suffering that you have to focus on the prevention side of the house, and I think that unless our colleagues in medicine and in public health come together and advocate for greater investments in prevention, or a national agenda around prevention, my worry is that it won’t naturally develop.”
On vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Murthy said that the United States needs to work more in increasing confidence that the vaccines will work, and in access to vaccines, but, mostly, in motivation.
“What we’ve learned is that ultimately trusted voices are what make all the difference when it comes to vaccination,” he said. “It’s one of these large, people-powered movements that we have to build in our community.”
Dr. Scheurer noted that, with hospitalists in 90% of U.S. hospitals, they can play a big role. “If we can all do our part then we’ll at least take the ball further down the field.”
Dr. Murthy added that, since residency, when he cared for young cancer patients near his own age, he has focused on “finding meaning now” in his work and life. The pandemic has reinforced this, and he doesn’t necessarily want life to go back to exactly how it was before the pandemic.
“Many of us are thinking – ‘Is there actually a better way for us to live our lives and design our workdays and our choices other than what we were doing prepandemic? Can we center our lives more around the people we love and care about, can we design our work to accommodate our family as opposed to the other way around, to always make our families accommodate our work?’ – These are the kinds of choices that we have to make as a society.”
Clinicians’ well-being is a “crisis” of grave import to the public health and a top issue that he hopes to get more squarely on the public radar screen, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, said May 6 in a “fireside chat” with SHM president Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSRC, SFHM, at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
“This is a crisis that I don’t know that the country recognizes is fully important,” Dr. Murthy said. “I don’t think that most people in the public recognize just how extraordinarily difficult it is, for many clinicians, to come to practice. And if the clinicians continue to burn out at the rate that they are – in addition to the humanitarian crisis of people who are struggling that we should all feel concern about – it will impact care in a profound way.” He said part of his plan is a “national agenda” for clinician well-being, with a clear pathway for creating an environment more conducive to providing quality patient care.
Dr. Scheurer said that this was “welcome news and wonderful to hear.”
“Fortunately or unfortunately, now I do think it’s more in the front seat,” she said, adding that “this notion of ‘heal thyself,’ we know doesn’t work and these are really systemic ailments that we all have to tackle together.”
Dr. Murthy, a hospitalist by training, recently began his second term as Surgeon General, having served under President Obama and appointed to the post again by President Biden. This second appointment is different in the knowledge he has about the job from the start, in the enormity of the public health challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and in the political tenor of the country.
He said one of his main priorities is to “recenter our public health response” with scientists and public health leaders regaining their proper role.
“Have them be the voices that are actually speaking directly to the public, not in a way that’s biased by the politics or by politicians, but it’s really guided again by the science and substance of what we know needs to happen,” he said.
The response to COVID goes beyond continuing an aggressive vaccination and testing campaign, he said. The pandemic has given rise to worse mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, substance use disorders, and delays in care for other medical conditions for fear of infection – and these are all priorities, Dr. Murthy said.
One “silver lining” of the pandemic is the expansion of telehealth, but this needs refining and persistence to make it work optimally for all patients, he said.
“We have to ensure that that expansion continues and that it’s even – meaning that there are so many parts of the country where broadband access is a challenge for patients, so they don’t have the benefits of telemedicine,” he said. “We also need to ensure that these systems are integrated across our current systems, across hospitals so that we’re not creating more work for clinicians when it comes to utilizing this technology to reach their patients.”
Clinicians – typically viewed as coming to Capitol Hill only to push for higher payment or changes to medical liability laws – need to use their trusted voices to raise the profile of preventive care and identifying and fixing social barriers related to health, such as transportation issues and unsafe neighborhoods, Dr. Murthy said.
“No one really celebrates the heart attack that was prevented or the asthma that was prevented – we celebrate the illness that took place and was cured,” he said. “We know as clinicians that if you really want to reduce human suffering that you have to focus on the prevention side of the house, and I think that unless our colleagues in medicine and in public health come together and advocate for greater investments in prevention, or a national agenda around prevention, my worry is that it won’t naturally develop.”
On vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Murthy said that the United States needs to work more in increasing confidence that the vaccines will work, and in access to vaccines, but, mostly, in motivation.
“What we’ve learned is that ultimately trusted voices are what make all the difference when it comes to vaccination,” he said. “It’s one of these large, people-powered movements that we have to build in our community.”
Dr. Scheurer noted that, with hospitalists in 90% of U.S. hospitals, they can play a big role. “If we can all do our part then we’ll at least take the ball further down the field.”
Dr. Murthy added that, since residency, when he cared for young cancer patients near his own age, he has focused on “finding meaning now” in his work and life. The pandemic has reinforced this, and he doesn’t necessarily want life to go back to exactly how it was before the pandemic.
“Many of us are thinking – ‘Is there actually a better way for us to live our lives and design our workdays and our choices other than what we were doing prepandemic? Can we center our lives more around the people we love and care about, can we design our work to accommodate our family as opposed to the other way around, to always make our families accommodate our work?’ – These are the kinds of choices that we have to make as a society.”
FROM SHM CONVERGE 2021
Making a difference
Hospitalists engaging in advocacy efforts
Hospitalists around the country are devoting large portions of their spare time to a wide range of advocacy efforts. From health policy to caring for the unhoused population to diversity and equity to advocating for fellow hospitalists, these physicians are passionate about their causes and determined to make a difference.
Championing the unhoused
Sarah Stella, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Denver Health, was initially drawn there because of the population the hospital serves, which includes a high concentration of people experiencing homelessness. As she cared for her patients, Dr. Stella, who is also associate professor of hospital medicine at the University of Colorado, increasingly felt the desire to help prevent the negative downstream outcomes the hospital sees.
To understand the experiences of the unhoused outside the hospital, Dr. Stella started talking to her patients and people in community-based organizations that serve this population. “I learned a ton,” she said. “Homelessness feels like such an intractable, hopeless thing, but the more I talked to people, the more opportunities I saw to work toward something better.”
This led to a pilot grant to work with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless to set up a community advisory panel. “My goal was to better understand their experiences and to develop a shared vision for how we collectively can do better,” said Dr. Stella. Eventually, she also received a grant from the University of Colorado, and multiple opportunities have sprung up ever since.
For the past several years, Dr. Stella has worked with Denver Health leadership to improve care for the homeless. “Right now, I’m working with a community team on developing an idea to provide peer support from people with a shared lived experience for people who are experiencing homelessness when they’re hospitalized. That’s really where my passion has been in working on the partnership,” she said.
Her advocacy role has been beneficial in her work as a hospitalist, particularly when COVID began. Dr. Stella again partnered with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless to start a joint task force. “Everyone on our task force is motivated by this powerful desire to improve the health and lives of this community and that’s one of the silver linings in this pandemic for me,” said Dr. Stella.
Advocacy work has also increased Dr. Stella’s knowledge of what community support options are available for the unhoused. This allows her to educate her patients about their options and how to access them.
While she has colleagues who are able to compartmentalize their work, “I absolutely could not be a hospitalist without being an advocate,” Dr. Stella said. “For me, it has been a protective strategy in terms of burnout because I have to feel like I’m working to advocate for better policies and more appropriate resources to address the gaps that I’m seeing.”
Dr. Stella believes that physicians have a special credibility to advocate, tell stories, and use data to back their stories up. “We have to realize that we have this power, and we have it so we can empower others,” she said. “The people I’ve seen in my community who are working so hard to help people who are experiencing homelessness are the heroes. Understanding that and giving power to those people through our voice and our well-respected place in society drives me.”
Strengthening diversity, equity, and inclusion
In September 2020, Michael Bryant, MD, became the inaugural vice chair of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for the department of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, where he is also the division head of pediatric hospital medicine. “I was motivated to apply for this position because I wanted to be an agent for change to eliminate the institutional racism, social injustice, and marginalization that continues to threaten the lives and well-beings of so many Americans,” Dr. Bryant said.
Between the pandemic, the economic decline it has created, and the divisive political landscape, people of color have been especially affected. “These are poignant examples of the ever-widening divide and disenfranchisement many Americans feel,” said Dr. Bryant. “Gandhi said, ‘Be the change that you want to see,’ and that is what I want to model.”
At work, advocacy for diversity, equality, and inclusion is an innate part of everything he does. From the new physicians he recruits to the candidates he considers for leadership positions, Dr. Bryant strives “to have a workforce that mirrors the diversity of the patients we humbly care for and serve.”
Advocacy is intrinsic to Dr. Bryant’s worldview, in his quest to understand and accept each individual’s uniqueness, his desire “to embrace cultural humility,” his recognition that “our differences enhance us instead of diminishing us,” and his willingness to engage in difficult conversations.
“Advocacy means that I acknowledge that intent does not equal impact and that I must accept that what I do and what I say may have unintended consequences,” he said. “When that happens, I must resist becoming defensive and instead be willing to listen and learn.”
Dr. Bryant is proud of his accomplishments and enjoys his advocacy work. In his workplace, there are few African Americans in leadership roles. This means that he is in high demand when it comes to making sure there’s representation during various processes such as hiring and vetting, a disparity known as the “minority tax.”
“I am thankful for the opportunities, but it does take a toll at times,” Dr. Bryant said, which is yet another reason why he is a proponent of increasing diversity and inclusion. “This allows us to build the resource pool as these needs arise and minimizes the toll of the ‘minority tax’ on any single person or small group of individuals.”
This summer, physicians from Dr. Bryant’s hospital participated in the national “White Coats for Black Lives” effort. He found it to be “an incredibly moving event” that hundreds of his colleagues participated in.
Dr. Bryant’s advice for hospitalists who want to get involved in advocacy efforts is to check out the movie “John Lewis: Good Trouble.” “He was a champion of human rights and fought for these rights until his death,” Dr. Bryant said. “He is a true American hero and a wonderful example.”
Bolstering health care change
Since his residency, Joshua Lenchus, DO, FACP, SFHM, has developed an ever-increasing interest in legislative advocacy, particularly health policy. Getting involved in this arena requires an understanding of civics and government that goes beyond just the basics. “My desire to affect change in my own profession really served as the catalyst to get involved,” said Dr. Lenchus, the regional chief medical officer at Broward Health Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “What better way to do that than by combining what we do on a daily basis in the practice of medicine with this new understanding of how laws are passed and promulgated?”
Dr. Lenchus has been involved with both state and national medical organizations and has served on public policy committees as a member and as a chair. “The charge of these committees is to monitor and navigate position statements and policies that will drive the entire organization,” he said. This means becoming knowledgeable enough about a topic to be able to talk about it eloquently and adding supporting personal or professional illustrations that reinforce the position to lawmakers.
He finds his advocacy efforts “incredibly rewarding” because they contribute to his endeavors “to help my colleagues practice medicine in a safe, efficient, and productive manner.” For instance, some of the organizations Dr. Lenchus was involved with helped make changes to the Affordable Care Act that ended up in its final version, as well as changes after it passed. “There are tangible things that advocacy enables us to do in our daily practice,” he said.
When something his organizations have advocated for does not pass, they know they need to try a different outlet. “You can’t win every fight,” he said. “Every time you go and comment on an issue, you have to understand that you’re there to do your best, and to the extent that the people you’re talking to are willing to listen to what you have to say, that’s where I think you can make the most impact.” When changes he has helped fight for do pass, “it really is amazing that you can tell your colleagues about your role in achieving meaningful change in the profession.”
Dr. Lenchus acknowledges that advocacy “can be all-consuming at times. We have to understand our limits.” That said, he thinks not engaging in advocacy could increase stress and potential burnout. “I think being involved in advocacy efforts really helps people conduct meaningful work and educates them about what it means not just to them, but to the rest of the medical profession and the patients that we serve,” he said.
For hospitalists who are interested in health policy advocacy, there are many ways to get involved, Dr. Lenchus said. You could join an organization (many organized medical societies have public policy committees), participate in advocacy activities, work on a political campaign, or even run for office yourself. “Ultimately, education and some level of involvement really will make the difference in who navigates our future as hospitalists,” he said.
Questioning co-management practices
Though he says he’s in the minority, Hardik Vora, MD, SFHM, medical director for hospital medicine at Riverside Regional Medical Center in Newport News, Va., believes that co-management is going to “make or break hospital medicine. It’s going to have a huge impact on our specialty.”
In the roughly 25-year history of hospital medicine, it has evolved from admitting and caring for patients of primary care physicians to patients of specialists and, more recently, surgical patients. “Now there are (hospital medicine) programs across the country that are pretty much admitting everything,” said Dr. Vora.
As a recruiter for the Riverside Health System for the past eight years, “I have not met a single resident who is trained to do what we’re doing in hospital medicine, because you’re admitting surgical patients all the time and you have primary attending responsibility,” Dr. Vora said. “I see that as a cause of a significant amount of stress because now you’re responsible for something that you don’t have adequate training for.”
In the co-management discussion, Dr. Vora notes that people often bring up the research that shows that the practice has improved surgeon satisfaction. “What bothers me is that…you need to add one more question – how does it affect your hospitalists? And I bet the answer to that question is ‘it has a terrible effect.’”
The expectations surrounding hospitalists these days is a big concern in terms of burnout, Dr. Vora said. “We talk a lot about the drivers of burnout, whether it’s schedule or COVID,” he said. The biggest issue when it comes to burnout, as he sees it, is not COVID; it’s when hospitalists are performing tasks that make them feel they aren’t adding value. “I think that’s a huge topic in hospital medicine right now.”
Dr. Vora believes there should be more discussion and awareness of the potential pitfalls. “Hospitalists should get involved in co-management where they are adding value and certainly not take up the attending responsibility where they’re not adding value and it’s out of the scope of their training and expertise,” he said. “Preventing scope creep and burnout from co-management are some of the key issues I’m really passionate about.”
Dr. Vora said it is important to set realistic goals and remember that it takes time to make change when it comes to advocacy. “You still have to operate within whatever environment is given to you and then you can make change from within,” he said.
His enthusiasm for co-management awareness has led to creating a co-management forum through SHM in his local Hampton Roads chapter. He was also a panelist for an SHM webinar in February 2021 in which the panelists debated co-management.
“I think we really need to look at this as a specialty. Are we going in the right direction?” Dr. Vora asked. “We need to come together as a specialty and make a decision, which is going to be hard because there are competing financial interests and various practice models.”
Improving patient care
Working as a hospitalist at University Medical Center, a safety net hospital in New Orleans, Celeste Newby, MD, PhD, sees plenty of patients who are underinsured or not insured at all. “A lot of my interest in health policy stems from that,” she said.
During her residency, which she finished in 2015, Louisiana became a Medicaid expansion state. This impressed upon Dr. Newby how much Medicaid improved the lives of patients who had previously been uninsured. “We saw procedures getting done that had been put on hold because of financial concerns or medicines that were now affordable that weren’t before,” she said. “It really did make a difference.”
When repeated attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act began, “it was a call to do health policy work for me personally that just hadn’t come up in the past,” said Dr. Newby, who is also assistant professor of medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans. “I personally found that the best way to do (advocacy work) was to go through medical societies because there is a much stronger voice when you have more people saying the same thing,” she said.
Dr. Newby sits on the Council of Legislation for the Louisiana State Medical Society and participates in the Leadership and Health Policy (LEAHP) Program through the Society of General Internal Medicine.
The LEAHP Program has been instrumental in expanding Dr. Newby’s knowledge of how health policy is made and the mechanisms behind it. It has also taught her “how we can either advise, guide, leverage, or advocate for things that we think would be important for change and moving the country in the right direction in terms of health care.”
Another reason involvement in medical societies is helpful is because, as a busy clinician, it is impossible to keep up with everything. “Working with medical societies, you have people who are more directly involved in the legislature and can give you quicker notice about things that are coming up that are going to be important to you or your co-workers or your patients,” Dr. Newby said.
Dr. Newby feels her advocacy work is an outlet for stress and “a way to work at more of a macro level on problems that I see with my individual patients. It’s a nice compliment.” At the hospital, she can only help one person at a time, but with her advocacy efforts, there’s potential to make changes for many.
“Advocacy now is such a large umbrella that encompasses so many different projects at all kinds of levels,” Dr. Newby said. She suggests looking around your community to see where the needs lie. If you’re passionate about a certain topic or population, see what you can do to help advocate for change there.
Hospitalists engaging in advocacy efforts
Hospitalists engaging in advocacy efforts
Hospitalists around the country are devoting large portions of their spare time to a wide range of advocacy efforts. From health policy to caring for the unhoused population to diversity and equity to advocating for fellow hospitalists, these physicians are passionate about their causes and determined to make a difference.
Championing the unhoused
Sarah Stella, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Denver Health, was initially drawn there because of the population the hospital serves, which includes a high concentration of people experiencing homelessness. As she cared for her patients, Dr. Stella, who is also associate professor of hospital medicine at the University of Colorado, increasingly felt the desire to help prevent the negative downstream outcomes the hospital sees.
To understand the experiences of the unhoused outside the hospital, Dr. Stella started talking to her patients and people in community-based organizations that serve this population. “I learned a ton,” she said. “Homelessness feels like such an intractable, hopeless thing, but the more I talked to people, the more opportunities I saw to work toward something better.”
This led to a pilot grant to work with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless to set up a community advisory panel. “My goal was to better understand their experiences and to develop a shared vision for how we collectively can do better,” said Dr. Stella. Eventually, she also received a grant from the University of Colorado, and multiple opportunities have sprung up ever since.
For the past several years, Dr. Stella has worked with Denver Health leadership to improve care for the homeless. “Right now, I’m working with a community team on developing an idea to provide peer support from people with a shared lived experience for people who are experiencing homelessness when they’re hospitalized. That’s really where my passion has been in working on the partnership,” she said.
Her advocacy role has been beneficial in her work as a hospitalist, particularly when COVID began. Dr. Stella again partnered with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless to start a joint task force. “Everyone on our task force is motivated by this powerful desire to improve the health and lives of this community and that’s one of the silver linings in this pandemic for me,” said Dr. Stella.
Advocacy work has also increased Dr. Stella’s knowledge of what community support options are available for the unhoused. This allows her to educate her patients about their options and how to access them.
While she has colleagues who are able to compartmentalize their work, “I absolutely could not be a hospitalist without being an advocate,” Dr. Stella said. “For me, it has been a protective strategy in terms of burnout because I have to feel like I’m working to advocate for better policies and more appropriate resources to address the gaps that I’m seeing.”
Dr. Stella believes that physicians have a special credibility to advocate, tell stories, and use data to back their stories up. “We have to realize that we have this power, and we have it so we can empower others,” she said. “The people I’ve seen in my community who are working so hard to help people who are experiencing homelessness are the heroes. Understanding that and giving power to those people through our voice and our well-respected place in society drives me.”
Strengthening diversity, equity, and inclusion
In September 2020, Michael Bryant, MD, became the inaugural vice chair of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for the department of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, where he is also the division head of pediatric hospital medicine. “I was motivated to apply for this position because I wanted to be an agent for change to eliminate the institutional racism, social injustice, and marginalization that continues to threaten the lives and well-beings of so many Americans,” Dr. Bryant said.
Between the pandemic, the economic decline it has created, and the divisive political landscape, people of color have been especially affected. “These are poignant examples of the ever-widening divide and disenfranchisement many Americans feel,” said Dr. Bryant. “Gandhi said, ‘Be the change that you want to see,’ and that is what I want to model.”
At work, advocacy for diversity, equality, and inclusion is an innate part of everything he does. From the new physicians he recruits to the candidates he considers for leadership positions, Dr. Bryant strives “to have a workforce that mirrors the diversity of the patients we humbly care for and serve.”
Advocacy is intrinsic to Dr. Bryant’s worldview, in his quest to understand and accept each individual’s uniqueness, his desire “to embrace cultural humility,” his recognition that “our differences enhance us instead of diminishing us,” and his willingness to engage in difficult conversations.
“Advocacy means that I acknowledge that intent does not equal impact and that I must accept that what I do and what I say may have unintended consequences,” he said. “When that happens, I must resist becoming defensive and instead be willing to listen and learn.”
Dr. Bryant is proud of his accomplishments and enjoys his advocacy work. In his workplace, there are few African Americans in leadership roles. This means that he is in high demand when it comes to making sure there’s representation during various processes such as hiring and vetting, a disparity known as the “minority tax.”
“I am thankful for the opportunities, but it does take a toll at times,” Dr. Bryant said, which is yet another reason why he is a proponent of increasing diversity and inclusion. “This allows us to build the resource pool as these needs arise and minimizes the toll of the ‘minority tax’ on any single person or small group of individuals.”
This summer, physicians from Dr. Bryant’s hospital participated in the national “White Coats for Black Lives” effort. He found it to be “an incredibly moving event” that hundreds of his colleagues participated in.
Dr. Bryant’s advice for hospitalists who want to get involved in advocacy efforts is to check out the movie “John Lewis: Good Trouble.” “He was a champion of human rights and fought for these rights until his death,” Dr. Bryant said. “He is a true American hero and a wonderful example.”
Bolstering health care change
Since his residency, Joshua Lenchus, DO, FACP, SFHM, has developed an ever-increasing interest in legislative advocacy, particularly health policy. Getting involved in this arena requires an understanding of civics and government that goes beyond just the basics. “My desire to affect change in my own profession really served as the catalyst to get involved,” said Dr. Lenchus, the regional chief medical officer at Broward Health Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “What better way to do that than by combining what we do on a daily basis in the practice of medicine with this new understanding of how laws are passed and promulgated?”
Dr. Lenchus has been involved with both state and national medical organizations and has served on public policy committees as a member and as a chair. “The charge of these committees is to monitor and navigate position statements and policies that will drive the entire organization,” he said. This means becoming knowledgeable enough about a topic to be able to talk about it eloquently and adding supporting personal or professional illustrations that reinforce the position to lawmakers.
He finds his advocacy efforts “incredibly rewarding” because they contribute to his endeavors “to help my colleagues practice medicine in a safe, efficient, and productive manner.” For instance, some of the organizations Dr. Lenchus was involved with helped make changes to the Affordable Care Act that ended up in its final version, as well as changes after it passed. “There are tangible things that advocacy enables us to do in our daily practice,” he said.
When something his organizations have advocated for does not pass, they know they need to try a different outlet. “You can’t win every fight,” he said. “Every time you go and comment on an issue, you have to understand that you’re there to do your best, and to the extent that the people you’re talking to are willing to listen to what you have to say, that’s where I think you can make the most impact.” When changes he has helped fight for do pass, “it really is amazing that you can tell your colleagues about your role in achieving meaningful change in the profession.”
Dr. Lenchus acknowledges that advocacy “can be all-consuming at times. We have to understand our limits.” That said, he thinks not engaging in advocacy could increase stress and potential burnout. “I think being involved in advocacy efforts really helps people conduct meaningful work and educates them about what it means not just to them, but to the rest of the medical profession and the patients that we serve,” he said.
For hospitalists who are interested in health policy advocacy, there are many ways to get involved, Dr. Lenchus said. You could join an organization (many organized medical societies have public policy committees), participate in advocacy activities, work on a political campaign, or even run for office yourself. “Ultimately, education and some level of involvement really will make the difference in who navigates our future as hospitalists,” he said.
Questioning co-management practices
Though he says he’s in the minority, Hardik Vora, MD, SFHM, medical director for hospital medicine at Riverside Regional Medical Center in Newport News, Va., believes that co-management is going to “make or break hospital medicine. It’s going to have a huge impact on our specialty.”
In the roughly 25-year history of hospital medicine, it has evolved from admitting and caring for patients of primary care physicians to patients of specialists and, more recently, surgical patients. “Now there are (hospital medicine) programs across the country that are pretty much admitting everything,” said Dr. Vora.
As a recruiter for the Riverside Health System for the past eight years, “I have not met a single resident who is trained to do what we’re doing in hospital medicine, because you’re admitting surgical patients all the time and you have primary attending responsibility,” Dr. Vora said. “I see that as a cause of a significant amount of stress because now you’re responsible for something that you don’t have adequate training for.”
In the co-management discussion, Dr. Vora notes that people often bring up the research that shows that the practice has improved surgeon satisfaction. “What bothers me is that…you need to add one more question – how does it affect your hospitalists? And I bet the answer to that question is ‘it has a terrible effect.’”
The expectations surrounding hospitalists these days is a big concern in terms of burnout, Dr. Vora said. “We talk a lot about the drivers of burnout, whether it’s schedule or COVID,” he said. The biggest issue when it comes to burnout, as he sees it, is not COVID; it’s when hospitalists are performing tasks that make them feel they aren’t adding value. “I think that’s a huge topic in hospital medicine right now.”
Dr. Vora believes there should be more discussion and awareness of the potential pitfalls. “Hospitalists should get involved in co-management where they are adding value and certainly not take up the attending responsibility where they’re not adding value and it’s out of the scope of their training and expertise,” he said. “Preventing scope creep and burnout from co-management are some of the key issues I’m really passionate about.”
Dr. Vora said it is important to set realistic goals and remember that it takes time to make change when it comes to advocacy. “You still have to operate within whatever environment is given to you and then you can make change from within,” he said.
His enthusiasm for co-management awareness has led to creating a co-management forum through SHM in his local Hampton Roads chapter. He was also a panelist for an SHM webinar in February 2021 in which the panelists debated co-management.
“I think we really need to look at this as a specialty. Are we going in the right direction?” Dr. Vora asked. “We need to come together as a specialty and make a decision, which is going to be hard because there are competing financial interests and various practice models.”
Improving patient care
Working as a hospitalist at University Medical Center, a safety net hospital in New Orleans, Celeste Newby, MD, PhD, sees plenty of patients who are underinsured or not insured at all. “A lot of my interest in health policy stems from that,” she said.
During her residency, which she finished in 2015, Louisiana became a Medicaid expansion state. This impressed upon Dr. Newby how much Medicaid improved the lives of patients who had previously been uninsured. “We saw procedures getting done that had been put on hold because of financial concerns or medicines that were now affordable that weren’t before,” she said. “It really did make a difference.”
When repeated attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act began, “it was a call to do health policy work for me personally that just hadn’t come up in the past,” said Dr. Newby, who is also assistant professor of medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans. “I personally found that the best way to do (advocacy work) was to go through medical societies because there is a much stronger voice when you have more people saying the same thing,” she said.
Dr. Newby sits on the Council of Legislation for the Louisiana State Medical Society and participates in the Leadership and Health Policy (LEAHP) Program through the Society of General Internal Medicine.
The LEAHP Program has been instrumental in expanding Dr. Newby’s knowledge of how health policy is made and the mechanisms behind it. It has also taught her “how we can either advise, guide, leverage, or advocate for things that we think would be important for change and moving the country in the right direction in terms of health care.”
Another reason involvement in medical societies is helpful is because, as a busy clinician, it is impossible to keep up with everything. “Working with medical societies, you have people who are more directly involved in the legislature and can give you quicker notice about things that are coming up that are going to be important to you or your co-workers or your patients,” Dr. Newby said.
Dr. Newby feels her advocacy work is an outlet for stress and “a way to work at more of a macro level on problems that I see with my individual patients. It’s a nice compliment.” At the hospital, she can only help one person at a time, but with her advocacy efforts, there’s potential to make changes for many.
“Advocacy now is such a large umbrella that encompasses so many different projects at all kinds of levels,” Dr. Newby said. She suggests looking around your community to see where the needs lie. If you’re passionate about a certain topic or population, see what you can do to help advocate for change there.
Hospitalists around the country are devoting large portions of their spare time to a wide range of advocacy efforts. From health policy to caring for the unhoused population to diversity and equity to advocating for fellow hospitalists, these physicians are passionate about their causes and determined to make a difference.
Championing the unhoused
Sarah Stella, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Denver Health, was initially drawn there because of the population the hospital serves, which includes a high concentration of people experiencing homelessness. As she cared for her patients, Dr. Stella, who is also associate professor of hospital medicine at the University of Colorado, increasingly felt the desire to help prevent the negative downstream outcomes the hospital sees.
To understand the experiences of the unhoused outside the hospital, Dr. Stella started talking to her patients and people in community-based organizations that serve this population. “I learned a ton,” she said. “Homelessness feels like such an intractable, hopeless thing, but the more I talked to people, the more opportunities I saw to work toward something better.”
This led to a pilot grant to work with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless to set up a community advisory panel. “My goal was to better understand their experiences and to develop a shared vision for how we collectively can do better,” said Dr. Stella. Eventually, she also received a grant from the University of Colorado, and multiple opportunities have sprung up ever since.
For the past several years, Dr. Stella has worked with Denver Health leadership to improve care for the homeless. “Right now, I’m working with a community team on developing an idea to provide peer support from people with a shared lived experience for people who are experiencing homelessness when they’re hospitalized. That’s really where my passion has been in working on the partnership,” she said.
Her advocacy role has been beneficial in her work as a hospitalist, particularly when COVID began. Dr. Stella again partnered with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless to start a joint task force. “Everyone on our task force is motivated by this powerful desire to improve the health and lives of this community and that’s one of the silver linings in this pandemic for me,” said Dr. Stella.
Advocacy work has also increased Dr. Stella’s knowledge of what community support options are available for the unhoused. This allows her to educate her patients about their options and how to access them.
While she has colleagues who are able to compartmentalize their work, “I absolutely could not be a hospitalist without being an advocate,” Dr. Stella said. “For me, it has been a protective strategy in terms of burnout because I have to feel like I’m working to advocate for better policies and more appropriate resources to address the gaps that I’m seeing.”
Dr. Stella believes that physicians have a special credibility to advocate, tell stories, and use data to back their stories up. “We have to realize that we have this power, and we have it so we can empower others,” she said. “The people I’ve seen in my community who are working so hard to help people who are experiencing homelessness are the heroes. Understanding that and giving power to those people through our voice and our well-respected place in society drives me.”
Strengthening diversity, equity, and inclusion
In September 2020, Michael Bryant, MD, became the inaugural vice chair of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for the department of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, where he is also the division head of pediatric hospital medicine. “I was motivated to apply for this position because I wanted to be an agent for change to eliminate the institutional racism, social injustice, and marginalization that continues to threaten the lives and well-beings of so many Americans,” Dr. Bryant said.
Between the pandemic, the economic decline it has created, and the divisive political landscape, people of color have been especially affected. “These are poignant examples of the ever-widening divide and disenfranchisement many Americans feel,” said Dr. Bryant. “Gandhi said, ‘Be the change that you want to see,’ and that is what I want to model.”
At work, advocacy for diversity, equality, and inclusion is an innate part of everything he does. From the new physicians he recruits to the candidates he considers for leadership positions, Dr. Bryant strives “to have a workforce that mirrors the diversity of the patients we humbly care for and serve.”
Advocacy is intrinsic to Dr. Bryant’s worldview, in his quest to understand and accept each individual’s uniqueness, his desire “to embrace cultural humility,” his recognition that “our differences enhance us instead of diminishing us,” and his willingness to engage in difficult conversations.
“Advocacy means that I acknowledge that intent does not equal impact and that I must accept that what I do and what I say may have unintended consequences,” he said. “When that happens, I must resist becoming defensive and instead be willing to listen and learn.”
Dr. Bryant is proud of his accomplishments and enjoys his advocacy work. In his workplace, there are few African Americans in leadership roles. This means that he is in high demand when it comes to making sure there’s representation during various processes such as hiring and vetting, a disparity known as the “minority tax.”
“I am thankful for the opportunities, but it does take a toll at times,” Dr. Bryant said, which is yet another reason why he is a proponent of increasing diversity and inclusion. “This allows us to build the resource pool as these needs arise and minimizes the toll of the ‘minority tax’ on any single person or small group of individuals.”
This summer, physicians from Dr. Bryant’s hospital participated in the national “White Coats for Black Lives” effort. He found it to be “an incredibly moving event” that hundreds of his colleagues participated in.
Dr. Bryant’s advice for hospitalists who want to get involved in advocacy efforts is to check out the movie “John Lewis: Good Trouble.” “He was a champion of human rights and fought for these rights until his death,” Dr. Bryant said. “He is a true American hero and a wonderful example.”
Bolstering health care change
Since his residency, Joshua Lenchus, DO, FACP, SFHM, has developed an ever-increasing interest in legislative advocacy, particularly health policy. Getting involved in this arena requires an understanding of civics and government that goes beyond just the basics. “My desire to affect change in my own profession really served as the catalyst to get involved,” said Dr. Lenchus, the regional chief medical officer at Broward Health Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “What better way to do that than by combining what we do on a daily basis in the practice of medicine with this new understanding of how laws are passed and promulgated?”
Dr. Lenchus has been involved with both state and national medical organizations and has served on public policy committees as a member and as a chair. “The charge of these committees is to monitor and navigate position statements and policies that will drive the entire organization,” he said. This means becoming knowledgeable enough about a topic to be able to talk about it eloquently and adding supporting personal or professional illustrations that reinforce the position to lawmakers.
He finds his advocacy efforts “incredibly rewarding” because they contribute to his endeavors “to help my colleagues practice medicine in a safe, efficient, and productive manner.” For instance, some of the organizations Dr. Lenchus was involved with helped make changes to the Affordable Care Act that ended up in its final version, as well as changes after it passed. “There are tangible things that advocacy enables us to do in our daily practice,” he said.
When something his organizations have advocated for does not pass, they know they need to try a different outlet. “You can’t win every fight,” he said. “Every time you go and comment on an issue, you have to understand that you’re there to do your best, and to the extent that the people you’re talking to are willing to listen to what you have to say, that’s where I think you can make the most impact.” When changes he has helped fight for do pass, “it really is amazing that you can tell your colleagues about your role in achieving meaningful change in the profession.”
Dr. Lenchus acknowledges that advocacy “can be all-consuming at times. We have to understand our limits.” That said, he thinks not engaging in advocacy could increase stress and potential burnout. “I think being involved in advocacy efforts really helps people conduct meaningful work and educates them about what it means not just to them, but to the rest of the medical profession and the patients that we serve,” he said.
For hospitalists who are interested in health policy advocacy, there are many ways to get involved, Dr. Lenchus said. You could join an organization (many organized medical societies have public policy committees), participate in advocacy activities, work on a political campaign, or even run for office yourself. “Ultimately, education and some level of involvement really will make the difference in who navigates our future as hospitalists,” he said.
Questioning co-management practices
Though he says he’s in the minority, Hardik Vora, MD, SFHM, medical director for hospital medicine at Riverside Regional Medical Center in Newport News, Va., believes that co-management is going to “make or break hospital medicine. It’s going to have a huge impact on our specialty.”
In the roughly 25-year history of hospital medicine, it has evolved from admitting and caring for patients of primary care physicians to patients of specialists and, more recently, surgical patients. “Now there are (hospital medicine) programs across the country that are pretty much admitting everything,” said Dr. Vora.
As a recruiter for the Riverside Health System for the past eight years, “I have not met a single resident who is trained to do what we’re doing in hospital medicine, because you’re admitting surgical patients all the time and you have primary attending responsibility,” Dr. Vora said. “I see that as a cause of a significant amount of stress because now you’re responsible for something that you don’t have adequate training for.”
In the co-management discussion, Dr. Vora notes that people often bring up the research that shows that the practice has improved surgeon satisfaction. “What bothers me is that…you need to add one more question – how does it affect your hospitalists? And I bet the answer to that question is ‘it has a terrible effect.’”
The expectations surrounding hospitalists these days is a big concern in terms of burnout, Dr. Vora said. “We talk a lot about the drivers of burnout, whether it’s schedule or COVID,” he said. The biggest issue when it comes to burnout, as he sees it, is not COVID; it’s when hospitalists are performing tasks that make them feel they aren’t adding value. “I think that’s a huge topic in hospital medicine right now.”
Dr. Vora believes there should be more discussion and awareness of the potential pitfalls. “Hospitalists should get involved in co-management where they are adding value and certainly not take up the attending responsibility where they’re not adding value and it’s out of the scope of their training and expertise,” he said. “Preventing scope creep and burnout from co-management are some of the key issues I’m really passionate about.”
Dr. Vora said it is important to set realistic goals and remember that it takes time to make change when it comes to advocacy. “You still have to operate within whatever environment is given to you and then you can make change from within,” he said.
His enthusiasm for co-management awareness has led to creating a co-management forum through SHM in his local Hampton Roads chapter. He was also a panelist for an SHM webinar in February 2021 in which the panelists debated co-management.
“I think we really need to look at this as a specialty. Are we going in the right direction?” Dr. Vora asked. “We need to come together as a specialty and make a decision, which is going to be hard because there are competing financial interests and various practice models.”
Improving patient care
Working as a hospitalist at University Medical Center, a safety net hospital in New Orleans, Celeste Newby, MD, PhD, sees plenty of patients who are underinsured or not insured at all. “A lot of my interest in health policy stems from that,” she said.
During her residency, which she finished in 2015, Louisiana became a Medicaid expansion state. This impressed upon Dr. Newby how much Medicaid improved the lives of patients who had previously been uninsured. “We saw procedures getting done that had been put on hold because of financial concerns or medicines that were now affordable that weren’t before,” she said. “It really did make a difference.”
When repeated attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act began, “it was a call to do health policy work for me personally that just hadn’t come up in the past,” said Dr. Newby, who is also assistant professor of medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans. “I personally found that the best way to do (advocacy work) was to go through medical societies because there is a much stronger voice when you have more people saying the same thing,” she said.
Dr. Newby sits on the Council of Legislation for the Louisiana State Medical Society and participates in the Leadership and Health Policy (LEAHP) Program through the Society of General Internal Medicine.
The LEAHP Program has been instrumental in expanding Dr. Newby’s knowledge of how health policy is made and the mechanisms behind it. It has also taught her “how we can either advise, guide, leverage, or advocate for things that we think would be important for change and moving the country in the right direction in terms of health care.”
Another reason involvement in medical societies is helpful is because, as a busy clinician, it is impossible to keep up with everything. “Working with medical societies, you have people who are more directly involved in the legislature and can give you quicker notice about things that are coming up that are going to be important to you or your co-workers or your patients,” Dr. Newby said.
Dr. Newby feels her advocacy work is an outlet for stress and “a way to work at more of a macro level on problems that I see with my individual patients. It’s a nice compliment.” At the hospital, she can only help one person at a time, but with her advocacy efforts, there’s potential to make changes for many.
“Advocacy now is such a large umbrella that encompasses so many different projects at all kinds of levels,” Dr. Newby said. She suggests looking around your community to see where the needs lie. If you’re passionate about a certain topic or population, see what you can do to help advocate for change there.
Longitudinal associations between income changes and incident CVD
Background: Low income is associated with CVD, although causality remains debated because low income is also associated with depression and negative health behaviors, which can be associated with CVD. For more robust causal inference, changes in income and their association with CVD must be observed.
Study design: Prospective observational cohort study.
Setting: Four U.S. urban centers – Jackson, Miss.; suburbs of Minneapolis; Washington County, Md.; and Forsyth County, N.C.
Synopsis: Among a large cohort of community-dwelling middle-aged adults, this study showed that negative income changes are associated with an increased incidence of CVD. Among 8,989 patients recruited from the four urban centers above, 10% experienced an income drop, 70% did not have a change in income, and 20% experienced an income increase over the first 6 years of the study. Patients were followed for a mean of 17 years, and those who experienced an income drop were found to have a 17% higher risk of incident CVD, whereas those who experienced an income increase had a 14% lower risk of CVD.
The study was limited by difficulties classifying income and its changes; the complicated nature of income, its relationship with other socioeconomic factors, and causation inferences; and the relatively short span over which income was monitored.
Bottom line: Income decrease is associated with an increased risk of incident CVD.
Citation: Wang S et al. Longitudinal associations between income changes and incident cardiovascular disease, the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Oct 9;4(12):1203-12.
Dr. Rupp is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: Low income is associated with CVD, although causality remains debated because low income is also associated with depression and negative health behaviors, which can be associated with CVD. For more robust causal inference, changes in income and their association with CVD must be observed.
Study design: Prospective observational cohort study.
Setting: Four U.S. urban centers – Jackson, Miss.; suburbs of Minneapolis; Washington County, Md.; and Forsyth County, N.C.
Synopsis: Among a large cohort of community-dwelling middle-aged adults, this study showed that negative income changes are associated with an increased incidence of CVD. Among 8,989 patients recruited from the four urban centers above, 10% experienced an income drop, 70% did not have a change in income, and 20% experienced an income increase over the first 6 years of the study. Patients were followed for a mean of 17 years, and those who experienced an income drop were found to have a 17% higher risk of incident CVD, whereas those who experienced an income increase had a 14% lower risk of CVD.
The study was limited by difficulties classifying income and its changes; the complicated nature of income, its relationship with other socioeconomic factors, and causation inferences; and the relatively short span over which income was monitored.
Bottom line: Income decrease is associated with an increased risk of incident CVD.
Citation: Wang S et al. Longitudinal associations between income changes and incident cardiovascular disease, the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Oct 9;4(12):1203-12.
Dr. Rupp is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: Low income is associated with CVD, although causality remains debated because low income is also associated with depression and negative health behaviors, which can be associated with CVD. For more robust causal inference, changes in income and their association with CVD must be observed.
Study design: Prospective observational cohort study.
Setting: Four U.S. urban centers – Jackson, Miss.; suburbs of Minneapolis; Washington County, Md.; and Forsyth County, N.C.
Synopsis: Among a large cohort of community-dwelling middle-aged adults, this study showed that negative income changes are associated with an increased incidence of CVD. Among 8,989 patients recruited from the four urban centers above, 10% experienced an income drop, 70% did not have a change in income, and 20% experienced an income increase over the first 6 years of the study. Patients were followed for a mean of 17 years, and those who experienced an income drop were found to have a 17% higher risk of incident CVD, whereas those who experienced an income increase had a 14% lower risk of CVD.
The study was limited by difficulties classifying income and its changes; the complicated nature of income, its relationship with other socioeconomic factors, and causation inferences; and the relatively short span over which income was monitored.
Bottom line: Income decrease is associated with an increased risk of incident CVD.
Citation: Wang S et al. Longitudinal associations between income changes and incident cardiovascular disease, the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Oct 9;4(12):1203-12.
Dr. Rupp is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Senate confirms Murthy as Surgeon General
Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.
Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.
Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.
During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.
When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.
Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.
He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.
He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.
Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.
Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.
During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.
When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.
Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.
He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.
He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.
Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.
Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.
During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.
When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.
Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.
He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.
He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
