User login
Medicare Rates in 2025 Would Cut Pay For Docs by 3%
Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.
, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.
The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.
This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.
Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.
“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”
Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.
“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”
Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.
Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.
Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.
That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.
, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.
The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.
This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.
Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.
“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”
Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.
“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”
Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.
Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.
Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.
That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.
, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.
The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.
This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.
Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.
“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”
Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.
“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”
Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.
Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.
Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.
That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Survey: Ob.Gyn.s Cite Burnout as Major Practice Issue
Nearly half (46%) of ob.gyn.s, and physicians generally, said in a new survey their employers were not paying enough attention to the extent of burnout among their physicians.
Findings of the survey were reported in Medscape’s Ob/Gyn Practice Issues Report 2024.
“It’s a big problem,” said Nigel Girgrah, MD, PhD, chief wellness officer at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, Louisiana. But he added he expects that 46% level to drop in the next few years.
“There’s an increasing awareness among executives in healthcare that well-being is a leading quality indicator, if not the indicator, of favorable outcomes in patient care, staff turnover, and other vital areas,” he said.
However, there are structural barriers that threaten work-life balance, says Eve Espey, MD, MPH, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. In a specialty made up mostly of women, she notes, there is no federal policy on paid medical leave, leading to women ob.gyn.s pulling double duty at work and at home.
“To me, the most important way to engage on burnout is not offering yoga lessons; it’s dealing with these big structural issues,” she said.
What’s Driving the Burnout
Ob.gyn. survey respondents said the top two reasons for burnout are too many bureaucratic tasks, such as paperwork and charting, (cited by 62%) and too many hours at work (cited by 53%).
More than half (55%) said the paperwork burden had increased in the past year; 34% said it stayed the same; and 11% said it had decreased.
“I think the regulatory burden has gotten higher for most of my colleagues,” Dr. Espey, said. “Coding and billing rules are pretty opaque to most ob.gyn.s and a lot of the tasks that used to be done by medical assistants are now done by physicians.”
‘Big Hope’ Is AI
“The big hope on the horizon is AI and programs that do basically what scribes do,” Dr. Espey said. “People feel like that will be a game-changer when it comes to paperwork.”
She said the root problem is that EHRs are used mostly for billing, not for communication. Two thirds of the respondents said they sometimes or always copy and paste from charts, which can lead to note bloat.
“You can’t write concise notes in EHRs,” Dr. Espey said. “I think this is an area where the promise of AI would be very helpful.”
Nearly 40% of ob.gyn.s were enthusiastic about the potential for AI in the survey; 43% were neutral on the subject; and the remainder were apprehensive. Asked about how their practices have most commonly used AI so far, 23% said it was used for researching conditions. The next highest usage was for help in diagnosing conditions (mentioned by 13%).
More than half (53%) of the ob.gyn.s said they thought AI would free up more time for patient conversations and care while only 38% of doctors generally thought it would.
Hard to Spend More Time With One Patient
Nearly three in 10 ob.gyn.s said they have a patient quota at their workplace, compared with one in four for physicians generally.
“Clearly, there can be thresholds (for ob.gyn.s) in the office and ambulatory care settings,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, a Sacramento ob.gyn. affiliated with University of California–Davis Medical Center. She added that on the inpatient side, patient quotas come from the allotted time an ob.gyn. can spend with a patient. “There are definitely hoops to jump through when we want to spend more time with a patient, and it can be tough for them to get a follow-up appointment.”
Most ob.gyn.s (62%) in the survey would give their employer good ratings for offering an engaging and welcoming atmosphere. But nearly 40% said their employer emphasizes patient quotas and CPT codes more than care quality.
Data for this report were drawn from several Medscape surveys performed between March and October of 2023.
Nearly half (46%) of ob.gyn.s, and physicians generally, said in a new survey their employers were not paying enough attention to the extent of burnout among their physicians.
Findings of the survey were reported in Medscape’s Ob/Gyn Practice Issues Report 2024.
“It’s a big problem,” said Nigel Girgrah, MD, PhD, chief wellness officer at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, Louisiana. But he added he expects that 46% level to drop in the next few years.
“There’s an increasing awareness among executives in healthcare that well-being is a leading quality indicator, if not the indicator, of favorable outcomes in patient care, staff turnover, and other vital areas,” he said.
However, there are structural barriers that threaten work-life balance, says Eve Espey, MD, MPH, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. In a specialty made up mostly of women, she notes, there is no federal policy on paid medical leave, leading to women ob.gyn.s pulling double duty at work and at home.
“To me, the most important way to engage on burnout is not offering yoga lessons; it’s dealing with these big structural issues,” she said.
What’s Driving the Burnout
Ob.gyn. survey respondents said the top two reasons for burnout are too many bureaucratic tasks, such as paperwork and charting, (cited by 62%) and too many hours at work (cited by 53%).
More than half (55%) said the paperwork burden had increased in the past year; 34% said it stayed the same; and 11% said it had decreased.
“I think the regulatory burden has gotten higher for most of my colleagues,” Dr. Espey, said. “Coding and billing rules are pretty opaque to most ob.gyn.s and a lot of the tasks that used to be done by medical assistants are now done by physicians.”
‘Big Hope’ Is AI
“The big hope on the horizon is AI and programs that do basically what scribes do,” Dr. Espey said. “People feel like that will be a game-changer when it comes to paperwork.”
She said the root problem is that EHRs are used mostly for billing, not for communication. Two thirds of the respondents said they sometimes or always copy and paste from charts, which can lead to note bloat.
“You can’t write concise notes in EHRs,” Dr. Espey said. “I think this is an area where the promise of AI would be very helpful.”
Nearly 40% of ob.gyn.s were enthusiastic about the potential for AI in the survey; 43% were neutral on the subject; and the remainder were apprehensive. Asked about how their practices have most commonly used AI so far, 23% said it was used for researching conditions. The next highest usage was for help in diagnosing conditions (mentioned by 13%).
More than half (53%) of the ob.gyn.s said they thought AI would free up more time for patient conversations and care while only 38% of doctors generally thought it would.
Hard to Spend More Time With One Patient
Nearly three in 10 ob.gyn.s said they have a patient quota at their workplace, compared with one in four for physicians generally.
“Clearly, there can be thresholds (for ob.gyn.s) in the office and ambulatory care settings,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, a Sacramento ob.gyn. affiliated with University of California–Davis Medical Center. She added that on the inpatient side, patient quotas come from the allotted time an ob.gyn. can spend with a patient. “There are definitely hoops to jump through when we want to spend more time with a patient, and it can be tough for them to get a follow-up appointment.”
Most ob.gyn.s (62%) in the survey would give their employer good ratings for offering an engaging and welcoming atmosphere. But nearly 40% said their employer emphasizes patient quotas and CPT codes more than care quality.
Data for this report were drawn from several Medscape surveys performed between March and October of 2023.
Nearly half (46%) of ob.gyn.s, and physicians generally, said in a new survey their employers were not paying enough attention to the extent of burnout among their physicians.
Findings of the survey were reported in Medscape’s Ob/Gyn Practice Issues Report 2024.
“It’s a big problem,” said Nigel Girgrah, MD, PhD, chief wellness officer at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, Louisiana. But he added he expects that 46% level to drop in the next few years.
“There’s an increasing awareness among executives in healthcare that well-being is a leading quality indicator, if not the indicator, of favorable outcomes in patient care, staff turnover, and other vital areas,” he said.
However, there are structural barriers that threaten work-life balance, says Eve Espey, MD, MPH, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. In a specialty made up mostly of women, she notes, there is no federal policy on paid medical leave, leading to women ob.gyn.s pulling double duty at work and at home.
“To me, the most important way to engage on burnout is not offering yoga lessons; it’s dealing with these big structural issues,” she said.
What’s Driving the Burnout
Ob.gyn. survey respondents said the top two reasons for burnout are too many bureaucratic tasks, such as paperwork and charting, (cited by 62%) and too many hours at work (cited by 53%).
More than half (55%) said the paperwork burden had increased in the past year; 34% said it stayed the same; and 11% said it had decreased.
“I think the regulatory burden has gotten higher for most of my colleagues,” Dr. Espey, said. “Coding and billing rules are pretty opaque to most ob.gyn.s and a lot of the tasks that used to be done by medical assistants are now done by physicians.”
‘Big Hope’ Is AI
“The big hope on the horizon is AI and programs that do basically what scribes do,” Dr. Espey said. “People feel like that will be a game-changer when it comes to paperwork.”
She said the root problem is that EHRs are used mostly for billing, not for communication. Two thirds of the respondents said they sometimes or always copy and paste from charts, which can lead to note bloat.
“You can’t write concise notes in EHRs,” Dr. Espey said. “I think this is an area where the promise of AI would be very helpful.”
Nearly 40% of ob.gyn.s were enthusiastic about the potential for AI in the survey; 43% were neutral on the subject; and the remainder were apprehensive. Asked about how their practices have most commonly used AI so far, 23% said it was used for researching conditions. The next highest usage was for help in diagnosing conditions (mentioned by 13%).
More than half (53%) of the ob.gyn.s said they thought AI would free up more time for patient conversations and care while only 38% of doctors generally thought it would.
Hard to Spend More Time With One Patient
Nearly three in 10 ob.gyn.s said they have a patient quota at their workplace, compared with one in four for physicians generally.
“Clearly, there can be thresholds (for ob.gyn.s) in the office and ambulatory care settings,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, a Sacramento ob.gyn. affiliated with University of California–Davis Medical Center. She added that on the inpatient side, patient quotas come from the allotted time an ob.gyn. can spend with a patient. “There are definitely hoops to jump through when we want to spend more time with a patient, and it can be tough for them to get a follow-up appointment.”
Most ob.gyn.s (62%) in the survey would give their employer good ratings for offering an engaging and welcoming atmosphere. But nearly 40% said their employer emphasizes patient quotas and CPT codes more than care quality.
Data for this report were drawn from several Medscape surveys performed between March and October of 2023.
Plastic Surgeon to Pay $5 Million for Restriction of Negative Reviews, Directing Fake Reviews
A Seattle plastic surgeon who illegally restricted patients from posting negative reviews about his practice and directed his staff to post fake positive reviews will pay $5 million for violating Washington state’s consumer protection law.
According to a July 1 consent decree, Javad Sajan, MD, and his practice Allure Esthetic must pay $1.5 million in restitution to 21,000 patients and $3.5 million to the state for manipulation of patient ratings.
In an April decision, US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez sided with the state, ruling that Allure Esthetic’s actions violated the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA).
“Writing a truthful review about a business should not subject you to threats or intimidation,” Mr. Ferguson said in a July 2 statement. “Consumers rely on reviews when determining who to trust, especially services that affect their health and safety. This resolution holds Allure accountable for brazenly violating that trust — and the law — and ensures the clinic stops its harmful conduct.”
In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys had argued that the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them.
The surgeon’s practice is “pleased to have resolved its case with the Attorney General’s Office,” according to a statement provided by Dr. Sajan’s attorney. “The cooperative settlement, while not admitting fault and resolving claims asserted by both sides, allows Allure Esthetic to continue to focus on its core mission of providing compassionate care to patients and serving the community. The decision to settle was not an easy one, but it was necessary to allocate time and resources where they matter most — the patients.”
The dispute stemmed from NDAs that Dr. Sajan’s practice required patients to sign starting in 2017, according to Mr. Ferguson’s complaint. The terms instructed patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review.
If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the lawsuit. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.
In addition, Mr. Ferguson accused Dr. Sajan of creating fake positive accounts of patient experiences and buying fake followers on social media. State investigators found Dr. Sajan directed Allure Esthetic’s employees to create fake Gmail accounts to post the false reviews, many of which are still online today, according to the state’s complaint.
Mr. Ferguson also claimed Dr. Sajan and his practice manipulated social media to appear more popular by purchasing followers through an online vendor. The practice also allegedly used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media.
After filing the lawsuit, Mr. Ferguson’s office uncovered further evidence of Dr. Sajan’s efforts to influence his professional reputation through fabrication, according to the July 2 release. Allure Esthetic “rigged” “best doctor” competitions hosted by local media outlets by paying staff and contractors to vote for Dr. Sajan as “best plastic surgeon” in the region, according to the release. The staff cast as many votes as websites allowed, despite not being patients of Allure Esthetic.
The practice also allegedly edited before-and-after photos of patients to make their results appear better and kept tens of thousands of dollars in rebates intended for its patients.
In addition to paying $5 million, the consent decree requires Dr. Sajan and his practice also:
- Stop posting or influencing consumer reviews; perform a full audit of all public reviews on Google, Yelp, and other third-party review platforms; and request removal of every review Allure Esthetic was involved in creating, posting, or shaping in any manner.
- Remove all misleading “before-and-after” photographs of plastic surgery procedures from its website and social media and stop altering photographs of future procedures.
- Cease use of and attempts to enforce all illegal NDAs and notify patients who previously signed them that they are released from the terms of those NDAs.
- Pay a third-party forensic accounting firm to perform a full, independent audit of Allure Esthetic’s consumer rebate program to identify consumers who are owed rebates that were unlawfully claimed by Allure Esthetic.
Additionally, the attorney general’s office will continue to monitor Allure Esthetic, and upon request, the practice must provide information that demonstrates its compliance with the consent decree for the next 10 years.
The practice must also develop internal policies and implement a training program to educate staff about nondeceptive advertising and compliance with consumer protection laws.
Dr. Sajan and his practice agreed to the terms of the consent decree, and the settlement is not considered an admission of liability.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A Seattle plastic surgeon who illegally restricted patients from posting negative reviews about his practice and directed his staff to post fake positive reviews will pay $5 million for violating Washington state’s consumer protection law.
According to a July 1 consent decree, Javad Sajan, MD, and his practice Allure Esthetic must pay $1.5 million in restitution to 21,000 patients and $3.5 million to the state for manipulation of patient ratings.
In an April decision, US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez sided with the state, ruling that Allure Esthetic’s actions violated the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA).
“Writing a truthful review about a business should not subject you to threats or intimidation,” Mr. Ferguson said in a July 2 statement. “Consumers rely on reviews when determining who to trust, especially services that affect their health and safety. This resolution holds Allure accountable for brazenly violating that trust — and the law — and ensures the clinic stops its harmful conduct.”
In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys had argued that the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them.
The surgeon’s practice is “pleased to have resolved its case with the Attorney General’s Office,” according to a statement provided by Dr. Sajan’s attorney. “The cooperative settlement, while not admitting fault and resolving claims asserted by both sides, allows Allure Esthetic to continue to focus on its core mission of providing compassionate care to patients and serving the community. The decision to settle was not an easy one, but it was necessary to allocate time and resources where they matter most — the patients.”
The dispute stemmed from NDAs that Dr. Sajan’s practice required patients to sign starting in 2017, according to Mr. Ferguson’s complaint. The terms instructed patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review.
If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the lawsuit. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.
In addition, Mr. Ferguson accused Dr. Sajan of creating fake positive accounts of patient experiences and buying fake followers on social media. State investigators found Dr. Sajan directed Allure Esthetic’s employees to create fake Gmail accounts to post the false reviews, many of which are still online today, according to the state’s complaint.
Mr. Ferguson also claimed Dr. Sajan and his practice manipulated social media to appear more popular by purchasing followers through an online vendor. The practice also allegedly used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media.
After filing the lawsuit, Mr. Ferguson’s office uncovered further evidence of Dr. Sajan’s efforts to influence his professional reputation through fabrication, according to the July 2 release. Allure Esthetic “rigged” “best doctor” competitions hosted by local media outlets by paying staff and contractors to vote for Dr. Sajan as “best plastic surgeon” in the region, according to the release. The staff cast as many votes as websites allowed, despite not being patients of Allure Esthetic.
The practice also allegedly edited before-and-after photos of patients to make their results appear better and kept tens of thousands of dollars in rebates intended for its patients.
In addition to paying $5 million, the consent decree requires Dr. Sajan and his practice also:
- Stop posting or influencing consumer reviews; perform a full audit of all public reviews on Google, Yelp, and other third-party review platforms; and request removal of every review Allure Esthetic was involved in creating, posting, or shaping in any manner.
- Remove all misleading “before-and-after” photographs of plastic surgery procedures from its website and social media and stop altering photographs of future procedures.
- Cease use of and attempts to enforce all illegal NDAs and notify patients who previously signed them that they are released from the terms of those NDAs.
- Pay a third-party forensic accounting firm to perform a full, independent audit of Allure Esthetic’s consumer rebate program to identify consumers who are owed rebates that were unlawfully claimed by Allure Esthetic.
Additionally, the attorney general’s office will continue to monitor Allure Esthetic, and upon request, the practice must provide information that demonstrates its compliance with the consent decree for the next 10 years.
The practice must also develop internal policies and implement a training program to educate staff about nondeceptive advertising and compliance with consumer protection laws.
Dr. Sajan and his practice agreed to the terms of the consent decree, and the settlement is not considered an admission of liability.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A Seattle plastic surgeon who illegally restricted patients from posting negative reviews about his practice and directed his staff to post fake positive reviews will pay $5 million for violating Washington state’s consumer protection law.
According to a July 1 consent decree, Javad Sajan, MD, and his practice Allure Esthetic must pay $1.5 million in restitution to 21,000 patients and $3.5 million to the state for manipulation of patient ratings.
In an April decision, US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez sided with the state, ruling that Allure Esthetic’s actions violated the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA).
“Writing a truthful review about a business should not subject you to threats or intimidation,” Mr. Ferguson said in a July 2 statement. “Consumers rely on reviews when determining who to trust, especially services that affect their health and safety. This resolution holds Allure accountable for brazenly violating that trust — and the law — and ensures the clinic stops its harmful conduct.”
In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys had argued that the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them.
The surgeon’s practice is “pleased to have resolved its case with the Attorney General’s Office,” according to a statement provided by Dr. Sajan’s attorney. “The cooperative settlement, while not admitting fault and resolving claims asserted by both sides, allows Allure Esthetic to continue to focus on its core mission of providing compassionate care to patients and serving the community. The decision to settle was not an easy one, but it was necessary to allocate time and resources where they matter most — the patients.”
The dispute stemmed from NDAs that Dr. Sajan’s practice required patients to sign starting in 2017, according to Mr. Ferguson’s complaint. The terms instructed patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review.
If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the lawsuit. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.
In addition, Mr. Ferguson accused Dr. Sajan of creating fake positive accounts of patient experiences and buying fake followers on social media. State investigators found Dr. Sajan directed Allure Esthetic’s employees to create fake Gmail accounts to post the false reviews, many of which are still online today, according to the state’s complaint.
Mr. Ferguson also claimed Dr. Sajan and his practice manipulated social media to appear more popular by purchasing followers through an online vendor. The practice also allegedly used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media.
After filing the lawsuit, Mr. Ferguson’s office uncovered further evidence of Dr. Sajan’s efforts to influence his professional reputation through fabrication, according to the July 2 release. Allure Esthetic “rigged” “best doctor” competitions hosted by local media outlets by paying staff and contractors to vote for Dr. Sajan as “best plastic surgeon” in the region, according to the release. The staff cast as many votes as websites allowed, despite not being patients of Allure Esthetic.
The practice also allegedly edited before-and-after photos of patients to make their results appear better and kept tens of thousands of dollars in rebates intended for its patients.
In addition to paying $5 million, the consent decree requires Dr. Sajan and his practice also:
- Stop posting or influencing consumer reviews; perform a full audit of all public reviews on Google, Yelp, and other third-party review platforms; and request removal of every review Allure Esthetic was involved in creating, posting, or shaping in any manner.
- Remove all misleading “before-and-after” photographs of plastic surgery procedures from its website and social media and stop altering photographs of future procedures.
- Cease use of and attempts to enforce all illegal NDAs and notify patients who previously signed them that they are released from the terms of those NDAs.
- Pay a third-party forensic accounting firm to perform a full, independent audit of Allure Esthetic’s consumer rebate program to identify consumers who are owed rebates that were unlawfully claimed by Allure Esthetic.
Additionally, the attorney general’s office will continue to monitor Allure Esthetic, and upon request, the practice must provide information that demonstrates its compliance with the consent decree for the next 10 years.
The practice must also develop internal policies and implement a training program to educate staff about nondeceptive advertising and compliance with consumer protection laws.
Dr. Sajan and his practice agreed to the terms of the consent decree, and the settlement is not considered an admission of liability.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A Doctor’s Guide to Relocation
Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.
The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.
This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
1. Find Relocation Resources
First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.
Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.
Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.
Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.
When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.
If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
2. Reach Out and Buddy Up
Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.
Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.
On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.
Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.
To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’
Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”
“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
4. Move Early
Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.
Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.
“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary
During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.
Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”
Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.
“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever
When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.
Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”
Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.
Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.
The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.
This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
1. Find Relocation Resources
First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.
Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.
Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.
Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.
When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.
If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
2. Reach Out and Buddy Up
Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.
Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.
On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.
Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.
To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’
Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”
“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
4. Move Early
Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.
Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.
“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary
During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.
Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”
Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.
“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever
When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.
Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”
Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.
Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.
The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.
This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
1. Find Relocation Resources
First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.
Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.
Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.
Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.
When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.
If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
2. Reach Out and Buddy Up
Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.
Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.
On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.
Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.
To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’
Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”
“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
4. Move Early
Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.
Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.
“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary
During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.
Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”
Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.
“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever
When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.
Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”
Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.
Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Confronting Healthcare Disinformation on Social Media
More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.
These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.
Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
Tenuous Causal Link
While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.
Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.
“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
Institutions’ Role
Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”
The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
A Doctor’s Role
And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.
From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
Misinformation vs Disinformation
The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.
The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.
These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.
Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
Tenuous Causal Link
While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.
Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.
“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
Institutions’ Role
Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”
The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
A Doctor’s Role
And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.
From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
Misinformation vs Disinformation
The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.
The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.
These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.
Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
Tenuous Causal Link
While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.
Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.
“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
Institutions’ Role
Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”
The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
A Doctor’s Role
And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.
From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
Misinformation vs Disinformation
The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.
The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Should Cancer Trial Eligibility Become More Inclusive?
The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.
“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”
Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.
In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.
In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.
Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing.
The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers.
Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.
A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.
The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).
“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.
The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.
So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.
Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.
Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”
However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.
“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”
Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.
“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”
Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.
In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.
In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.
Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing.
The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers.
Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.
A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.
The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).
“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.
The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.
So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.
Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.
Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”
However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.
“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”
Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.
“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”
Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.
In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.
In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.
Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing.
The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers.
Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.
A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.
The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).
“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.
The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.
So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.
Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.
Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”
However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.
“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”
Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Concierge Catch: Improved Access for Some Patients Disrupts Care for Many
“You had to pay the fee, or the doctor wasn’t going to see you anymore.”
That was the takeaway for Terri Marroquin of Midland, Texas, when her longtime physician began charging a membership fee in 2019. She found out about the change when someone at the physician’s front desk pointed to a posted notice.
At first, she stuck with the practice; in her area, she said, it is now tough to find a primary care doctor who doesn’t charge an annual membership fee from $350 to $500.
But last year, Ms. Marroquin finally left to join a practice with no membership fee where she sees a physician assistant rather than a doctor. “I had had enough. The concierge fee kept going up, and the doctor’s office kept getting nicer and nicer,” she said, referring to the décor.
Many people seeking a new doctor are calling a long list of primary care practices only to be told they’re not taking new patients.
“Concierge medicine potentially leads to disproportionately richer people being able to pay for the scarce resource of physician time and crowding out people who have lower incomes and are sicker,” said Adam Leive, PhD, lead author of a 2023 study on concierge medicine and researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. Leive’s research showed no decrease in mortality for concierge patients compared with similar patients who saw nonconcierge physicians, suggesting concierge care may not notably improve some health outcomes.
A 2005 study showed concierge physicians had smaller proportions of patients with diabetes than their nonconcierge counterparts and provided care for fewer Black and Hispanic patients.
There’s little reliable data available on the size of the concierge medicine market. But one market research firm projects that concierge medicine revenue will grow about 10.4% annually through 2030. About 5,000 to 7,000 physicians and practices provide concierge care in the United States, most of whom are primary care providers, according to Concierge Medicine Today. (Yes, the burgeoning field already has a trade publication.)
The concierge pitch is simple: More time with your doctor, in-person or remotely, promptly and at your convenience. With many primary care physicians caring for thousands of patients each in appointments of 15 minutes or less, some people who can afford the fee say they feel forced to pay it just to maintain adequate access to their doctor.
As primary care providers convert to concierge medicine, many patients could face the financial and health consequences of a potentially lengthy search for a new provider. With fewer physicians in nonconcierge practices, the pool available to people who can’t or won’t pay is smaller. For them, it is harder to find a doctor.
Concierge care models vary widely, but all involve paying a periodic fee to be a patient of the practice.
These fees are generally not covered by insurance nor payable with a tax-advantaged flexible spending account or health savings account. Annual fees range from $199 for Amazon’s One Medical (with a discount available for Prime members) to low four figures for companies like MDVIP and SignatureMD that partner with physicians, to $10,000 or more for top-branded practices like Massachusetts General Hospital’s.
Many patients are exasperated with the prospect of pay-to-play primary care. For one thing, under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to cover a variety of preventive services without a patient paying out of pocket. “Your annual physical should be free,” said Caitlin Donovan, a spokesperson for the National Patient Advocate Foundation. “Why are you paying $2,000 for it?”
Liz Glatzer felt her doctor in Providence, Rhode Island, was competent but didn’t have time to absorb her full health history. “I had double mastectomy 25 years ago,” she said. “At my first physical, the doctor ran through my meds and whatever else, and she said, ‘Oh, you haven’t had a mammogram.’ I said, ‘I don’t have breasts to have mammography.’ ”
In 2023, after repeating that same exchange during her next two physicals, Ms. Glatzer signed up to pay $1,900 a year for MDVIP, a concierge staffing service that contracts with her new doctor, who is also a friend’s husband. In her first couple of visits, Ms. Glatzer’s new physician took hours to get to know her, she said.
For the growing numbers of Americans who can’t or won’t pay when their doctor switches to concierge care, finding new primary care can mean frustration, delayed or missed tests or treatments, and fragmented health care.
“I’ve met so many patients who couldn’t afford the concierge services and needed to look for a new primary care physician,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, director of the Robert Graham Center and a practicing family physician. Separating from a doctor who’s transitioning to concierge care “breaks the continuity with the provider that we know is so important for good health outcomes.” .
That disruption has consequences. “People don’t get the preventive services that they should, and they use more expensive and inefficient avenues for care that could have otherwise been provided by their doctor,” said Abbie Leibowitz, chief medical officer at Health Advocate, a company that helps patients find care and resolve insurance issues.
What happens to patients who find themselves at loose ends when a physician transitions to concierge practice?
Patients who lose their doctors often give up on having an ongoing relationship with a primary care clinician. They may rely solely on a pharmacy-based clinic or urgent care center or even a hospital emergency department for primary care.
Some concierge providers say they are responding to concerns about access and equity by allowing patients to opt out of concierge care but stay with the practice group at a lower tier of service. This might entail longer waits for shorter appointments, fewer visits with a physician, and more visits with mid-level providers, for example.
Deb Gordon of Cambridge, Massachusetts, said she is searching for a new primary care doctor after hers switched to concierge medicine — a challenge that involves finding someone in her network who has admitting privileges at her preferred hospitals and is accepting new patients.
Ms. Gordon, who is codirector of the Alliance of Professional Health Advocates, which provides support services to patient advocates, said the practice that her doctor left has not assigned her a new provider, and her health plan said it was OK if she went without one. “I was shocked that they literally said, ‘You can go to urgent care.’ ”
Some patients find themselves turning to physician assistants and other mid-level providers. But those clinicians have much less training than physicians with board certification in family medicine or internal medicine and so may not be fully qualified to treat patients with complex health problems. “The expertise of physician assistants and nurse practitioners can really vary widely,” said Russell Phillips, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
“You had to pay the fee, or the doctor wasn’t going to see you anymore.”
That was the takeaway for Terri Marroquin of Midland, Texas, when her longtime physician began charging a membership fee in 2019. She found out about the change when someone at the physician’s front desk pointed to a posted notice.
At first, she stuck with the practice; in her area, she said, it is now tough to find a primary care doctor who doesn’t charge an annual membership fee from $350 to $500.
But last year, Ms. Marroquin finally left to join a practice with no membership fee where she sees a physician assistant rather than a doctor. “I had had enough. The concierge fee kept going up, and the doctor’s office kept getting nicer and nicer,” she said, referring to the décor.
Many people seeking a new doctor are calling a long list of primary care practices only to be told they’re not taking new patients.
“Concierge medicine potentially leads to disproportionately richer people being able to pay for the scarce resource of physician time and crowding out people who have lower incomes and are sicker,” said Adam Leive, PhD, lead author of a 2023 study on concierge medicine and researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. Leive’s research showed no decrease in mortality for concierge patients compared with similar patients who saw nonconcierge physicians, suggesting concierge care may not notably improve some health outcomes.
A 2005 study showed concierge physicians had smaller proportions of patients with diabetes than their nonconcierge counterparts and provided care for fewer Black and Hispanic patients.
There’s little reliable data available on the size of the concierge medicine market. But one market research firm projects that concierge medicine revenue will grow about 10.4% annually through 2030. About 5,000 to 7,000 physicians and practices provide concierge care in the United States, most of whom are primary care providers, according to Concierge Medicine Today. (Yes, the burgeoning field already has a trade publication.)
The concierge pitch is simple: More time with your doctor, in-person or remotely, promptly and at your convenience. With many primary care physicians caring for thousands of patients each in appointments of 15 minutes or less, some people who can afford the fee say they feel forced to pay it just to maintain adequate access to their doctor.
As primary care providers convert to concierge medicine, many patients could face the financial and health consequences of a potentially lengthy search for a new provider. With fewer physicians in nonconcierge practices, the pool available to people who can’t or won’t pay is smaller. For them, it is harder to find a doctor.
Concierge care models vary widely, but all involve paying a periodic fee to be a patient of the practice.
These fees are generally not covered by insurance nor payable with a tax-advantaged flexible spending account or health savings account. Annual fees range from $199 for Amazon’s One Medical (with a discount available for Prime members) to low four figures for companies like MDVIP and SignatureMD that partner with physicians, to $10,000 or more for top-branded practices like Massachusetts General Hospital’s.
Many patients are exasperated with the prospect of pay-to-play primary care. For one thing, under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to cover a variety of preventive services without a patient paying out of pocket. “Your annual physical should be free,” said Caitlin Donovan, a spokesperson for the National Patient Advocate Foundation. “Why are you paying $2,000 for it?”
Liz Glatzer felt her doctor in Providence, Rhode Island, was competent but didn’t have time to absorb her full health history. “I had double mastectomy 25 years ago,” she said. “At my first physical, the doctor ran through my meds and whatever else, and she said, ‘Oh, you haven’t had a mammogram.’ I said, ‘I don’t have breasts to have mammography.’ ”
In 2023, after repeating that same exchange during her next two physicals, Ms. Glatzer signed up to pay $1,900 a year for MDVIP, a concierge staffing service that contracts with her new doctor, who is also a friend’s husband. In her first couple of visits, Ms. Glatzer’s new physician took hours to get to know her, she said.
For the growing numbers of Americans who can’t or won’t pay when their doctor switches to concierge care, finding new primary care can mean frustration, delayed or missed tests or treatments, and fragmented health care.
“I’ve met so many patients who couldn’t afford the concierge services and needed to look for a new primary care physician,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, director of the Robert Graham Center and a practicing family physician. Separating from a doctor who’s transitioning to concierge care “breaks the continuity with the provider that we know is so important for good health outcomes.” .
That disruption has consequences. “People don’t get the preventive services that they should, and they use more expensive and inefficient avenues for care that could have otherwise been provided by their doctor,” said Abbie Leibowitz, chief medical officer at Health Advocate, a company that helps patients find care and resolve insurance issues.
What happens to patients who find themselves at loose ends when a physician transitions to concierge practice?
Patients who lose their doctors often give up on having an ongoing relationship with a primary care clinician. They may rely solely on a pharmacy-based clinic or urgent care center or even a hospital emergency department for primary care.
Some concierge providers say they are responding to concerns about access and equity by allowing patients to opt out of concierge care but stay with the practice group at a lower tier of service. This might entail longer waits for shorter appointments, fewer visits with a physician, and more visits with mid-level providers, for example.
Deb Gordon of Cambridge, Massachusetts, said she is searching for a new primary care doctor after hers switched to concierge medicine — a challenge that involves finding someone in her network who has admitting privileges at her preferred hospitals and is accepting new patients.
Ms. Gordon, who is codirector of the Alliance of Professional Health Advocates, which provides support services to patient advocates, said the practice that her doctor left has not assigned her a new provider, and her health plan said it was OK if she went without one. “I was shocked that they literally said, ‘You can go to urgent care.’ ”
Some patients find themselves turning to physician assistants and other mid-level providers. But those clinicians have much less training than physicians with board certification in family medicine or internal medicine and so may not be fully qualified to treat patients with complex health problems. “The expertise of physician assistants and nurse practitioners can really vary widely,” said Russell Phillips, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
“You had to pay the fee, or the doctor wasn’t going to see you anymore.”
That was the takeaway for Terri Marroquin of Midland, Texas, when her longtime physician began charging a membership fee in 2019. She found out about the change when someone at the physician’s front desk pointed to a posted notice.
At first, she stuck with the practice; in her area, she said, it is now tough to find a primary care doctor who doesn’t charge an annual membership fee from $350 to $500.
But last year, Ms. Marroquin finally left to join a practice with no membership fee where she sees a physician assistant rather than a doctor. “I had had enough. The concierge fee kept going up, and the doctor’s office kept getting nicer and nicer,” she said, referring to the décor.
Many people seeking a new doctor are calling a long list of primary care practices only to be told they’re not taking new patients.
“Concierge medicine potentially leads to disproportionately richer people being able to pay for the scarce resource of physician time and crowding out people who have lower incomes and are sicker,” said Adam Leive, PhD, lead author of a 2023 study on concierge medicine and researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. Leive’s research showed no decrease in mortality for concierge patients compared with similar patients who saw nonconcierge physicians, suggesting concierge care may not notably improve some health outcomes.
A 2005 study showed concierge physicians had smaller proportions of patients with diabetes than their nonconcierge counterparts and provided care for fewer Black and Hispanic patients.
There’s little reliable data available on the size of the concierge medicine market. But one market research firm projects that concierge medicine revenue will grow about 10.4% annually through 2030. About 5,000 to 7,000 physicians and practices provide concierge care in the United States, most of whom are primary care providers, according to Concierge Medicine Today. (Yes, the burgeoning field already has a trade publication.)
The concierge pitch is simple: More time with your doctor, in-person or remotely, promptly and at your convenience. With many primary care physicians caring for thousands of patients each in appointments of 15 minutes or less, some people who can afford the fee say they feel forced to pay it just to maintain adequate access to their doctor.
As primary care providers convert to concierge medicine, many patients could face the financial and health consequences of a potentially lengthy search for a new provider. With fewer physicians in nonconcierge practices, the pool available to people who can’t or won’t pay is smaller. For them, it is harder to find a doctor.
Concierge care models vary widely, but all involve paying a periodic fee to be a patient of the practice.
These fees are generally not covered by insurance nor payable with a tax-advantaged flexible spending account or health savings account. Annual fees range from $199 for Amazon’s One Medical (with a discount available for Prime members) to low four figures for companies like MDVIP and SignatureMD that partner with physicians, to $10,000 or more for top-branded practices like Massachusetts General Hospital’s.
Many patients are exasperated with the prospect of pay-to-play primary care. For one thing, under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to cover a variety of preventive services without a patient paying out of pocket. “Your annual physical should be free,” said Caitlin Donovan, a spokesperson for the National Patient Advocate Foundation. “Why are you paying $2,000 for it?”
Liz Glatzer felt her doctor in Providence, Rhode Island, was competent but didn’t have time to absorb her full health history. “I had double mastectomy 25 years ago,” she said. “At my first physical, the doctor ran through my meds and whatever else, and she said, ‘Oh, you haven’t had a mammogram.’ I said, ‘I don’t have breasts to have mammography.’ ”
In 2023, after repeating that same exchange during her next two physicals, Ms. Glatzer signed up to pay $1,900 a year for MDVIP, a concierge staffing service that contracts with her new doctor, who is also a friend’s husband. In her first couple of visits, Ms. Glatzer’s new physician took hours to get to know her, she said.
For the growing numbers of Americans who can’t or won’t pay when their doctor switches to concierge care, finding new primary care can mean frustration, delayed or missed tests or treatments, and fragmented health care.
“I’ve met so many patients who couldn’t afford the concierge services and needed to look for a new primary care physician,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, director of the Robert Graham Center and a practicing family physician. Separating from a doctor who’s transitioning to concierge care “breaks the continuity with the provider that we know is so important for good health outcomes.” .
That disruption has consequences. “People don’t get the preventive services that they should, and they use more expensive and inefficient avenues for care that could have otherwise been provided by their doctor,” said Abbie Leibowitz, chief medical officer at Health Advocate, a company that helps patients find care and resolve insurance issues.
What happens to patients who find themselves at loose ends when a physician transitions to concierge practice?
Patients who lose their doctors often give up on having an ongoing relationship with a primary care clinician. They may rely solely on a pharmacy-based clinic or urgent care center or even a hospital emergency department for primary care.
Some concierge providers say they are responding to concerns about access and equity by allowing patients to opt out of concierge care but stay with the practice group at a lower tier of service. This might entail longer waits for shorter appointments, fewer visits with a physician, and more visits with mid-level providers, for example.
Deb Gordon of Cambridge, Massachusetts, said she is searching for a new primary care doctor after hers switched to concierge medicine — a challenge that involves finding someone in her network who has admitting privileges at her preferred hospitals and is accepting new patients.
Ms. Gordon, who is codirector of the Alliance of Professional Health Advocates, which provides support services to patient advocates, said the practice that her doctor left has not assigned her a new provider, and her health plan said it was OK if she went without one. “I was shocked that they literally said, ‘You can go to urgent care.’ ”
Some patients find themselves turning to physician assistants and other mid-level providers. But those clinicians have much less training than physicians with board certification in family medicine or internal medicine and so may not be fully qualified to treat patients with complex health problems. “The expertise of physician assistants and nurse practitioners can really vary widely,” said Russell Phillips, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Specific Antipsychotics Linked to Increased Pneumonia Risk
TOPLINE:
High-dose antipsychotics, particularly quetiapine, clozapine, and olanzapine, are linked to increased pneumonia risk in patients with schizophrenia, new data show. Monotherapy with high anticholinergic burden also raises pneumonia risk.
METHODOLOGY:
- Using several nationwide data registers, investigators pulled data on individuals who received inpatient care for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (n = 61,889) between 1972 and 2014.
- Data on drug use were gathered from a prescription register and included dispensing dates, cost, dose, package size, and drug formulation. Data on dates and causes of death were obtained from the Causes of Death register.
- After entering the cohort, follow-up started in January 1996 or after the first diagnosis of schizophrenia for those diagnosed between 1996 and 2014.
- The primary outcome was hospitalization caused by pneumonia as the main diagnosis for hospital admission.
TAKEAWAY:
- During 22 years of follow-up, 8917 patients (14.4%) had one or more hospitalizations for pneumonia, and 1137 (12.8%) died within 30 days of admission.
- Pneumonia risk was the highest with the use of high-dose (> 440 mg/d) quetiapine (P = .003), followed by high- (≥ 330 mg/d) and medium-dose (180 to < 330 mg/d) clozapine (both P < .001) and high-dose (≥ 11 mg/d) olanzapine (P = .02).
- Compared with no antipsychotic use, antipsychotic monotherapy was associated with an increased pneumonia risk (P = .03), whereas antipsychotic polytherapy was not.
- Only the use of antipsychotics with high anticholinergic potency was associated with pneumonia risk (P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Identification of antipsychotic drugs that are associated with pneumonia risk may better inform prevention programs (eg, vaccinations),” the researchers noted. “Second, the availability of pneumonia risk estimates for individual antipsychotics and for groups of antipsychotics may foster personalized prescribing guidelines.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jurjen Luykx, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
LIMITATIONS:
The investigators could not correct for all possible risk factors that may increase pneumonia risk in individuals with schizophrenia, such as smoking and lifestyle habits. Also, cases of pneumonia that didn’t require hospital admission couldn’t be included in the analysis, so the findings may generalize only to cases of severe pneumonia.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High-dose antipsychotics, particularly quetiapine, clozapine, and olanzapine, are linked to increased pneumonia risk in patients with schizophrenia, new data show. Monotherapy with high anticholinergic burden also raises pneumonia risk.
METHODOLOGY:
- Using several nationwide data registers, investigators pulled data on individuals who received inpatient care for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (n = 61,889) between 1972 and 2014.
- Data on drug use were gathered from a prescription register and included dispensing dates, cost, dose, package size, and drug formulation. Data on dates and causes of death were obtained from the Causes of Death register.
- After entering the cohort, follow-up started in January 1996 or after the first diagnosis of schizophrenia for those diagnosed between 1996 and 2014.
- The primary outcome was hospitalization caused by pneumonia as the main diagnosis for hospital admission.
TAKEAWAY:
- During 22 years of follow-up, 8917 patients (14.4%) had one or more hospitalizations for pneumonia, and 1137 (12.8%) died within 30 days of admission.
- Pneumonia risk was the highest with the use of high-dose (> 440 mg/d) quetiapine (P = .003), followed by high- (≥ 330 mg/d) and medium-dose (180 to < 330 mg/d) clozapine (both P < .001) and high-dose (≥ 11 mg/d) olanzapine (P = .02).
- Compared with no antipsychotic use, antipsychotic monotherapy was associated with an increased pneumonia risk (P = .03), whereas antipsychotic polytherapy was not.
- Only the use of antipsychotics with high anticholinergic potency was associated with pneumonia risk (P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Identification of antipsychotic drugs that are associated with pneumonia risk may better inform prevention programs (eg, vaccinations),” the researchers noted. “Second, the availability of pneumonia risk estimates for individual antipsychotics and for groups of antipsychotics may foster personalized prescribing guidelines.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jurjen Luykx, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
LIMITATIONS:
The investigators could not correct for all possible risk factors that may increase pneumonia risk in individuals with schizophrenia, such as smoking and lifestyle habits. Also, cases of pneumonia that didn’t require hospital admission couldn’t be included in the analysis, so the findings may generalize only to cases of severe pneumonia.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High-dose antipsychotics, particularly quetiapine, clozapine, and olanzapine, are linked to increased pneumonia risk in patients with schizophrenia, new data show. Monotherapy with high anticholinergic burden also raises pneumonia risk.
METHODOLOGY:
- Using several nationwide data registers, investigators pulled data on individuals who received inpatient care for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (n = 61,889) between 1972 and 2014.
- Data on drug use were gathered from a prescription register and included dispensing dates, cost, dose, package size, and drug formulation. Data on dates and causes of death were obtained from the Causes of Death register.
- After entering the cohort, follow-up started in January 1996 or after the first diagnosis of schizophrenia for those diagnosed between 1996 and 2014.
- The primary outcome was hospitalization caused by pneumonia as the main diagnosis for hospital admission.
TAKEAWAY:
- During 22 years of follow-up, 8917 patients (14.4%) had one or more hospitalizations for pneumonia, and 1137 (12.8%) died within 30 days of admission.
- Pneumonia risk was the highest with the use of high-dose (> 440 mg/d) quetiapine (P = .003), followed by high- (≥ 330 mg/d) and medium-dose (180 to < 330 mg/d) clozapine (both P < .001) and high-dose (≥ 11 mg/d) olanzapine (P = .02).
- Compared with no antipsychotic use, antipsychotic monotherapy was associated with an increased pneumonia risk (P = .03), whereas antipsychotic polytherapy was not.
- Only the use of antipsychotics with high anticholinergic potency was associated with pneumonia risk (P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Identification of antipsychotic drugs that are associated with pneumonia risk may better inform prevention programs (eg, vaccinations),” the researchers noted. “Second, the availability of pneumonia risk estimates for individual antipsychotics and for groups of antipsychotics may foster personalized prescribing guidelines.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jurjen Luykx, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
LIMITATIONS:
The investigators could not correct for all possible risk factors that may increase pneumonia risk in individuals with schizophrenia, such as smoking and lifestyle habits. Also, cases of pneumonia that didn’t require hospital admission couldn’t be included in the analysis, so the findings may generalize only to cases of severe pneumonia.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How Dermatologists Can Safeguard Against Malpractice Claims
for liability. Dermatologists can protect themselves by understanding malpractice trends and taking preventive steps, such as making sure NPOs have appropriate training and using a rigorous informed consent process, according to a dermatology resident and a dermatologist who have researched recent trends in dermatology lawsuits.
“It’s really important that physicians recognize their responsibility when delegating procedures to nonphysician operators and the physician’s role in supervision of these procedures,” Scott Stratman, MD, MPH, a dermatology resident at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, told this news organization. He led a study recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which found that the majority (52%) of malpractice cases for cutaneous energy-based device procedures in the LexisNexis database from 1985 to September 2023 involved NPOs. The study did not break the data down between different types of NPOs.
Trends in Dermatology Malpractice
This follows a similar trend reported in a 2014 study led by Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of the MGH Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. The study analyzed liability claims related to cutaneous laser surgery performed by nonphysicians from January 1999 to December 2012.
“With nonphysician litigation data, we saw trend lines beginning in 2008 where the proportion of cases began to increase,” Dr. Avram said at the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) meeting on April 12, 2024. “Over a period of 2008-2012, it went from 36% of cases to about 78%,” he said.
About a quarter (23.4%) of those were in medical offices; 76.6% were in nontraditional settings such as medical spas, he added. The proportion of NPOs was similar in a 2022 study that looked at causes of litigation in cutaneous laser surgery from 2012 to 2020, Dr. Avram said. Again, neither study broke down cases involving NPOs by specific type, but the 2014 study reported that 64% of cases by NPOs occurred outside of a traditional medical setting.
“So it seems that the location and potentially the supervision are issues that are important to patient safety,” Dr. Avram said at the meeting. While state laws regarding laser delegation vary widely, “depending on where you practice, it’s incumbent upon you to know that.”
Dr. Avram and colleagues were also the authors of a study published in June in Dermatologic Surgery that looked at the reasons behind ligations involving dermatologists in a retrospective analysis of 48 state and federal cases between 2011 and 2022. The majority of cases — 54.2% — were for unexpected harm, followed by wrong or delayed diagnoses, which accounted for a third of litigations.
Dr. Stratman’s study found that laser hair removal was the most common procedure for malpractice claims in dermatology among cutaneous energy-based device procedures. Complications from energy-based devices included burns, scarring, and pigmentation changes.
The growth of malpractice suits involving NPOs could be because NPOs are performing a greater proportion of dermatologic procedures, “particularly those practicing without direct supervision, such as in the context of a medical spa,” Dr. Stratman said in the interview. “Again, this highlights a physician’s responsibility in delegating these kinds of procedures to NPOs.”
Training Is a Must — But Not Standardized
Comprehensive training for physicians, staff, NPOs, and physicians “is all necessary and paramount in order to diminish adverse outcomes and legal risk, and then, of course, all these practitioners, be it staff or [NPOs], and, of course, physicians, are all held to the same standard of care,” Dr. Stratman said.
However, he added, “There is really no standardized training to operate these devices. That being said, it’s really important to know that both providers and facility owners have a significant obligation to their patients to make sure that their staff in their centers are appropriately trained.”
Training not only involves protocols and procedures but also how to handle patient interactions, Dr. Stratman said.
The legal concept of respondeat superior applies when nonphysicians participate in a patient’s care, Dr. Avram said at the ASLMS meeting. The physician is held liable for a nonphysician’s “negligence provided he or she is an employee receiving a salary [and] benefits and is performing within the scope of his or her duty,” regardless of whether the physician saw the patient or not at that visit, he said. Again, supervision of nonphysician laser procedures varies from state to state, he added.
“So the take-home point is to provide excellent training and appropriate supervision, and if you’re the owner of that practice, you are liable in the event of negligence even though you never were part of the treatment,” Dr. Avram said.
Ins and Outs of Informed Consent
When a patient outcome is less than desirable, or at least less than what the patient expected, a transparent and thorough informed consent process can protect the practice and physician, Dr. Avram said at the meeting.
“Malpractice and consent have nothing to do with each other,” he said. “Consent is getting permission to do a procedure. It’s needed actually for any medical intervention that you perform. What you need to do is to provide information to enable the patient or guardian or to choose knowledgeably among reasonable medical alternatives. This places the patient in control of the course of their medical treatment.”
The information conveyed to the patient should include the diagnosis, the medical causes, the nature and purpose of the treatment, and the risks and alternatives of procedure, “particularly if they’re high risk,” Dr. Avram said.
“Failure to obtain informed consent constitutes a civil battery, and the physician is liable for civil damages,” he said. “The patient need only show that he or she was not informed of the medical nature of the medical touching; physical injury is not necessary.”
A battery could occur if a procedure extends beyond the scope or area of treatment the patient agreed to — for example, extending a liposuction to an area that wasn’t originally targeted, or extending a laser procedure to an area of the body as a presumed favor to the patient. “It does not require a standard of care or an expert witness,” Dr. Avram said. “One only needs to show nonconsensual touching.”
Informed consents should include plain language, he said. “The whole idea is the patient understands what the risks and benefits are,” Dr. Avram said. “You don’t need to use medical jargon.” As an example, he suggested using the term “blisters” instead of “bullae.” If the treatment involves an off-label procedure, include that too, he said.
He also advised avoiding blanket authorizations. “Courts disfavor them,” he noted. “They need more specificity. So those are not valid.”
Dr. Stratman added that providers should think about the setting in which they obtain informed consent. “It’s really important that providers are consenting their patients in private and quiet places, free from distractions, that they accommodate patients who might have disabilities or limitations in English proficiency, using a teach-back method to help patients understand or demonstrate their understanding of the procedure in order to gauge comprehension,” he said.
Both Dr. Avram and Dr. Stratman pointed out that another strategy to prevent malpractice is to build trusting patient-provider relationships. “The patient-provider relationship is paramount not only to the success of the procedure but to the clinical visit as a whole,” Dr. Stratman said.
That’s a two-way street, he added. Patients should be able to trust that their provider provides them with the best treatment based on their own history, and providers should also be able to trust that patients are providing them with an accurate history, asking relevant questions, or expressing any level of apprehension about the procedure or visit. “The patient-provider relationship is everything,” Dr. Stratman said.
Dr. Stratman and Dr. Avram had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
for liability. Dermatologists can protect themselves by understanding malpractice trends and taking preventive steps, such as making sure NPOs have appropriate training and using a rigorous informed consent process, according to a dermatology resident and a dermatologist who have researched recent trends in dermatology lawsuits.
“It’s really important that physicians recognize their responsibility when delegating procedures to nonphysician operators and the physician’s role in supervision of these procedures,” Scott Stratman, MD, MPH, a dermatology resident at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, told this news organization. He led a study recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which found that the majority (52%) of malpractice cases for cutaneous energy-based device procedures in the LexisNexis database from 1985 to September 2023 involved NPOs. The study did not break the data down between different types of NPOs.
Trends in Dermatology Malpractice
This follows a similar trend reported in a 2014 study led by Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of the MGH Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. The study analyzed liability claims related to cutaneous laser surgery performed by nonphysicians from January 1999 to December 2012.
“With nonphysician litigation data, we saw trend lines beginning in 2008 where the proportion of cases began to increase,” Dr. Avram said at the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) meeting on April 12, 2024. “Over a period of 2008-2012, it went from 36% of cases to about 78%,” he said.
About a quarter (23.4%) of those were in medical offices; 76.6% were in nontraditional settings such as medical spas, he added. The proportion of NPOs was similar in a 2022 study that looked at causes of litigation in cutaneous laser surgery from 2012 to 2020, Dr. Avram said. Again, neither study broke down cases involving NPOs by specific type, but the 2014 study reported that 64% of cases by NPOs occurred outside of a traditional medical setting.
“So it seems that the location and potentially the supervision are issues that are important to patient safety,” Dr. Avram said at the meeting. While state laws regarding laser delegation vary widely, “depending on where you practice, it’s incumbent upon you to know that.”
Dr. Avram and colleagues were also the authors of a study published in June in Dermatologic Surgery that looked at the reasons behind ligations involving dermatologists in a retrospective analysis of 48 state and federal cases between 2011 and 2022. The majority of cases — 54.2% — were for unexpected harm, followed by wrong or delayed diagnoses, which accounted for a third of litigations.
Dr. Stratman’s study found that laser hair removal was the most common procedure for malpractice claims in dermatology among cutaneous energy-based device procedures. Complications from energy-based devices included burns, scarring, and pigmentation changes.
The growth of malpractice suits involving NPOs could be because NPOs are performing a greater proportion of dermatologic procedures, “particularly those practicing without direct supervision, such as in the context of a medical spa,” Dr. Stratman said in the interview. “Again, this highlights a physician’s responsibility in delegating these kinds of procedures to NPOs.”
Training Is a Must — But Not Standardized
Comprehensive training for physicians, staff, NPOs, and physicians “is all necessary and paramount in order to diminish adverse outcomes and legal risk, and then, of course, all these practitioners, be it staff or [NPOs], and, of course, physicians, are all held to the same standard of care,” Dr. Stratman said.
However, he added, “There is really no standardized training to operate these devices. That being said, it’s really important to know that both providers and facility owners have a significant obligation to their patients to make sure that their staff in their centers are appropriately trained.”
Training not only involves protocols and procedures but also how to handle patient interactions, Dr. Stratman said.
The legal concept of respondeat superior applies when nonphysicians participate in a patient’s care, Dr. Avram said at the ASLMS meeting. The physician is held liable for a nonphysician’s “negligence provided he or she is an employee receiving a salary [and] benefits and is performing within the scope of his or her duty,” regardless of whether the physician saw the patient or not at that visit, he said. Again, supervision of nonphysician laser procedures varies from state to state, he added.
“So the take-home point is to provide excellent training and appropriate supervision, and if you’re the owner of that practice, you are liable in the event of negligence even though you never were part of the treatment,” Dr. Avram said.
Ins and Outs of Informed Consent
When a patient outcome is less than desirable, or at least less than what the patient expected, a transparent and thorough informed consent process can protect the practice and physician, Dr. Avram said at the meeting.
“Malpractice and consent have nothing to do with each other,” he said. “Consent is getting permission to do a procedure. It’s needed actually for any medical intervention that you perform. What you need to do is to provide information to enable the patient or guardian or to choose knowledgeably among reasonable medical alternatives. This places the patient in control of the course of their medical treatment.”
The information conveyed to the patient should include the diagnosis, the medical causes, the nature and purpose of the treatment, and the risks and alternatives of procedure, “particularly if they’re high risk,” Dr. Avram said.
“Failure to obtain informed consent constitutes a civil battery, and the physician is liable for civil damages,” he said. “The patient need only show that he or she was not informed of the medical nature of the medical touching; physical injury is not necessary.”
A battery could occur if a procedure extends beyond the scope or area of treatment the patient agreed to — for example, extending a liposuction to an area that wasn’t originally targeted, or extending a laser procedure to an area of the body as a presumed favor to the patient. “It does not require a standard of care or an expert witness,” Dr. Avram said. “One only needs to show nonconsensual touching.”
Informed consents should include plain language, he said. “The whole idea is the patient understands what the risks and benefits are,” Dr. Avram said. “You don’t need to use medical jargon.” As an example, he suggested using the term “blisters” instead of “bullae.” If the treatment involves an off-label procedure, include that too, he said.
He also advised avoiding blanket authorizations. “Courts disfavor them,” he noted. “They need more specificity. So those are not valid.”
Dr. Stratman added that providers should think about the setting in which they obtain informed consent. “It’s really important that providers are consenting their patients in private and quiet places, free from distractions, that they accommodate patients who might have disabilities or limitations in English proficiency, using a teach-back method to help patients understand or demonstrate their understanding of the procedure in order to gauge comprehension,” he said.
Both Dr. Avram and Dr. Stratman pointed out that another strategy to prevent malpractice is to build trusting patient-provider relationships. “The patient-provider relationship is paramount not only to the success of the procedure but to the clinical visit as a whole,” Dr. Stratman said.
That’s a two-way street, he added. Patients should be able to trust that their provider provides them with the best treatment based on their own history, and providers should also be able to trust that patients are providing them with an accurate history, asking relevant questions, or expressing any level of apprehension about the procedure or visit. “The patient-provider relationship is everything,” Dr. Stratman said.
Dr. Stratman and Dr. Avram had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
for liability. Dermatologists can protect themselves by understanding malpractice trends and taking preventive steps, such as making sure NPOs have appropriate training and using a rigorous informed consent process, according to a dermatology resident and a dermatologist who have researched recent trends in dermatology lawsuits.
“It’s really important that physicians recognize their responsibility when delegating procedures to nonphysician operators and the physician’s role in supervision of these procedures,” Scott Stratman, MD, MPH, a dermatology resident at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, told this news organization. He led a study recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which found that the majority (52%) of malpractice cases for cutaneous energy-based device procedures in the LexisNexis database from 1985 to September 2023 involved NPOs. The study did not break the data down between different types of NPOs.
Trends in Dermatology Malpractice
This follows a similar trend reported in a 2014 study led by Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of the MGH Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. The study analyzed liability claims related to cutaneous laser surgery performed by nonphysicians from January 1999 to December 2012.
“With nonphysician litigation data, we saw trend lines beginning in 2008 where the proportion of cases began to increase,” Dr. Avram said at the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) meeting on April 12, 2024. “Over a period of 2008-2012, it went from 36% of cases to about 78%,” he said.
About a quarter (23.4%) of those were in medical offices; 76.6% were in nontraditional settings such as medical spas, he added. The proportion of NPOs was similar in a 2022 study that looked at causes of litigation in cutaneous laser surgery from 2012 to 2020, Dr. Avram said. Again, neither study broke down cases involving NPOs by specific type, but the 2014 study reported that 64% of cases by NPOs occurred outside of a traditional medical setting.
“So it seems that the location and potentially the supervision are issues that are important to patient safety,” Dr. Avram said at the meeting. While state laws regarding laser delegation vary widely, “depending on where you practice, it’s incumbent upon you to know that.”
Dr. Avram and colleagues were also the authors of a study published in June in Dermatologic Surgery that looked at the reasons behind ligations involving dermatologists in a retrospective analysis of 48 state and federal cases between 2011 and 2022. The majority of cases — 54.2% — were for unexpected harm, followed by wrong or delayed diagnoses, which accounted for a third of litigations.
Dr. Stratman’s study found that laser hair removal was the most common procedure for malpractice claims in dermatology among cutaneous energy-based device procedures. Complications from energy-based devices included burns, scarring, and pigmentation changes.
The growth of malpractice suits involving NPOs could be because NPOs are performing a greater proportion of dermatologic procedures, “particularly those practicing without direct supervision, such as in the context of a medical spa,” Dr. Stratman said in the interview. “Again, this highlights a physician’s responsibility in delegating these kinds of procedures to NPOs.”
Training Is a Must — But Not Standardized
Comprehensive training for physicians, staff, NPOs, and physicians “is all necessary and paramount in order to diminish adverse outcomes and legal risk, and then, of course, all these practitioners, be it staff or [NPOs], and, of course, physicians, are all held to the same standard of care,” Dr. Stratman said.
However, he added, “There is really no standardized training to operate these devices. That being said, it’s really important to know that both providers and facility owners have a significant obligation to their patients to make sure that their staff in their centers are appropriately trained.”
Training not only involves protocols and procedures but also how to handle patient interactions, Dr. Stratman said.
The legal concept of respondeat superior applies when nonphysicians participate in a patient’s care, Dr. Avram said at the ASLMS meeting. The physician is held liable for a nonphysician’s “negligence provided he or she is an employee receiving a salary [and] benefits and is performing within the scope of his or her duty,” regardless of whether the physician saw the patient or not at that visit, he said. Again, supervision of nonphysician laser procedures varies from state to state, he added.
“So the take-home point is to provide excellent training and appropriate supervision, and if you’re the owner of that practice, you are liable in the event of negligence even though you never were part of the treatment,” Dr. Avram said.
Ins and Outs of Informed Consent
When a patient outcome is less than desirable, or at least less than what the patient expected, a transparent and thorough informed consent process can protect the practice and physician, Dr. Avram said at the meeting.
“Malpractice and consent have nothing to do with each other,” he said. “Consent is getting permission to do a procedure. It’s needed actually for any medical intervention that you perform. What you need to do is to provide information to enable the patient or guardian or to choose knowledgeably among reasonable medical alternatives. This places the patient in control of the course of their medical treatment.”
The information conveyed to the patient should include the diagnosis, the medical causes, the nature and purpose of the treatment, and the risks and alternatives of procedure, “particularly if they’re high risk,” Dr. Avram said.
“Failure to obtain informed consent constitutes a civil battery, and the physician is liable for civil damages,” he said. “The patient need only show that he or she was not informed of the medical nature of the medical touching; physical injury is not necessary.”
A battery could occur if a procedure extends beyond the scope or area of treatment the patient agreed to — for example, extending a liposuction to an area that wasn’t originally targeted, or extending a laser procedure to an area of the body as a presumed favor to the patient. “It does not require a standard of care or an expert witness,” Dr. Avram said. “One only needs to show nonconsensual touching.”
Informed consents should include plain language, he said. “The whole idea is the patient understands what the risks and benefits are,” Dr. Avram said. “You don’t need to use medical jargon.” As an example, he suggested using the term “blisters” instead of “bullae.” If the treatment involves an off-label procedure, include that too, he said.
He also advised avoiding blanket authorizations. “Courts disfavor them,” he noted. “They need more specificity. So those are not valid.”
Dr. Stratman added that providers should think about the setting in which they obtain informed consent. “It’s really important that providers are consenting their patients in private and quiet places, free from distractions, that they accommodate patients who might have disabilities or limitations in English proficiency, using a teach-back method to help patients understand or demonstrate their understanding of the procedure in order to gauge comprehension,” he said.
Both Dr. Avram and Dr. Stratman pointed out that another strategy to prevent malpractice is to build trusting patient-provider relationships. “The patient-provider relationship is paramount not only to the success of the procedure but to the clinical visit as a whole,” Dr. Stratman said.
That’s a two-way street, he added. Patients should be able to trust that their provider provides them with the best treatment based on their own history, and providers should also be able to trust that patients are providing them with an accurate history, asking relevant questions, or expressing any level of apprehension about the procedure or visit. “The patient-provider relationship is everything,” Dr. Stratman said.
Dr. Stratman and Dr. Avram had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Feds May End Hospital System’s Noncompete Contract for Part-Time Docs
Mount Sinai Health System in New York City is forcing part-time physicians to sign employment contracts that violate their labor rights, according to a June 2024 complaint by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The complaint stems from no-poaching and confidentiality clauses in the agreements required as a condition of employment, NLRB officials alleged.
according to a copy of the terms included in NLRB’s June 18 complaint.
By requiring the agreements, NLRB officials claimed, Mount Sinai is “interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees” in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The health system’s “unfair labor practices” affects commerce as outlined under the law, according to the NLRB. The Act bans employers from burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.
Mount Sinai did not respond to requests for comment.
The NLRB’s complaint follows a landmark decision by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. In April 2024, the FTC voted to prohibit noncompetes indefinitely in an effort to protect workers.
“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a statement. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”
Business groups and agencies have since sued to challenge against the ban, including the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber and other business groups argue that noncompete agreements are important for companies to protect trade secrets, shield recruiting investments, and hide confidential information. The lawsuits are ongoing.
A Physician Blows the Whistle
An anonymous physician first alerted the NLRB to the contract language in November 2023. The doctor was required the sign the hospital system’s agreement for part-time physicians. The complaint does not say if the employee is still employed by the hospital system.
To remedy the unfair labor practices alleged, the NLRB seeks an order requiring the health system to rescind the contract language, stop any actions against current or former employees to enforce the provisions, and make whole any employees who suffered financial losses related to the contract terms.
The allegation against Mount Sinai is among a rising number of grievances filed with the NLRB that claim unfair labor practices. During the first 6 months of fiscal year 2024, unfair labor practice charges filed across the NLRB’s field offices increased 7% — from 9612 in 2023 to 10,278 in 2024, according to a news release.
NLRB, meanwhile has been cracking down on anticompetitive labor practices and confidentiality provisions that prevent employees from speaking out.
In a February 2023 decision for instance, NLRB ruled that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by offering severance agreements to workers that include restrictive confidentiality and nondisparagement terms. In 2022, the NLRB and the Federal Trade Commission forged a partnership to more widely combat unfair, anticompetitive, and deceptive business practices.
“Noncompete provisions reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights when the provisions could reasonably be construed by employees to deny them the ability to quit or change jobs by cutting off their access to other employment opportunities that they are qualified for,” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in a 2023 release.
Ms. Abruzzo stressed in a memo that NLR Act is committed to an interagency approach to restrictions on the exercise of employee rights, “including limits to workers’ job mobility, information sharing, and referrals to other agencies.”
Mount Sinai Health System must respond to the NLRB’s complaint by July 16, and an administrative law judge is scheduled to hear the case on September 24.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mount Sinai Health System in New York City is forcing part-time physicians to sign employment contracts that violate their labor rights, according to a June 2024 complaint by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The complaint stems from no-poaching and confidentiality clauses in the agreements required as a condition of employment, NLRB officials alleged.
according to a copy of the terms included in NLRB’s June 18 complaint.
By requiring the agreements, NLRB officials claimed, Mount Sinai is “interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees” in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The health system’s “unfair labor practices” affects commerce as outlined under the law, according to the NLRB. The Act bans employers from burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.
Mount Sinai did not respond to requests for comment.
The NLRB’s complaint follows a landmark decision by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. In April 2024, the FTC voted to prohibit noncompetes indefinitely in an effort to protect workers.
“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a statement. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”
Business groups and agencies have since sued to challenge against the ban, including the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber and other business groups argue that noncompete agreements are important for companies to protect trade secrets, shield recruiting investments, and hide confidential information. The lawsuits are ongoing.
A Physician Blows the Whistle
An anonymous physician first alerted the NLRB to the contract language in November 2023. The doctor was required the sign the hospital system’s agreement for part-time physicians. The complaint does not say if the employee is still employed by the hospital system.
To remedy the unfair labor practices alleged, the NLRB seeks an order requiring the health system to rescind the contract language, stop any actions against current or former employees to enforce the provisions, and make whole any employees who suffered financial losses related to the contract terms.
The allegation against Mount Sinai is among a rising number of grievances filed with the NLRB that claim unfair labor practices. During the first 6 months of fiscal year 2024, unfair labor practice charges filed across the NLRB’s field offices increased 7% — from 9612 in 2023 to 10,278 in 2024, according to a news release.
NLRB, meanwhile has been cracking down on anticompetitive labor practices and confidentiality provisions that prevent employees from speaking out.
In a February 2023 decision for instance, NLRB ruled that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by offering severance agreements to workers that include restrictive confidentiality and nondisparagement terms. In 2022, the NLRB and the Federal Trade Commission forged a partnership to more widely combat unfair, anticompetitive, and deceptive business practices.
“Noncompete provisions reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights when the provisions could reasonably be construed by employees to deny them the ability to quit or change jobs by cutting off their access to other employment opportunities that they are qualified for,” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in a 2023 release.
Ms. Abruzzo stressed in a memo that NLR Act is committed to an interagency approach to restrictions on the exercise of employee rights, “including limits to workers’ job mobility, information sharing, and referrals to other agencies.”
Mount Sinai Health System must respond to the NLRB’s complaint by July 16, and an administrative law judge is scheduled to hear the case on September 24.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mount Sinai Health System in New York City is forcing part-time physicians to sign employment contracts that violate their labor rights, according to a June 2024 complaint by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The complaint stems from no-poaching and confidentiality clauses in the agreements required as a condition of employment, NLRB officials alleged.
according to a copy of the terms included in NLRB’s June 18 complaint.
By requiring the agreements, NLRB officials claimed, Mount Sinai is “interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees” in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The health system’s “unfair labor practices” affects commerce as outlined under the law, according to the NLRB. The Act bans employers from burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.
Mount Sinai did not respond to requests for comment.
The NLRB’s complaint follows a landmark decision by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. In April 2024, the FTC voted to prohibit noncompetes indefinitely in an effort to protect workers.
“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a statement. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”
Business groups and agencies have since sued to challenge against the ban, including the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber and other business groups argue that noncompete agreements are important for companies to protect trade secrets, shield recruiting investments, and hide confidential information. The lawsuits are ongoing.
A Physician Blows the Whistle
An anonymous physician first alerted the NLRB to the contract language in November 2023. The doctor was required the sign the hospital system’s agreement for part-time physicians. The complaint does not say if the employee is still employed by the hospital system.
To remedy the unfair labor practices alleged, the NLRB seeks an order requiring the health system to rescind the contract language, stop any actions against current or former employees to enforce the provisions, and make whole any employees who suffered financial losses related to the contract terms.
The allegation against Mount Sinai is among a rising number of grievances filed with the NLRB that claim unfair labor practices. During the first 6 months of fiscal year 2024, unfair labor practice charges filed across the NLRB’s field offices increased 7% — from 9612 in 2023 to 10,278 in 2024, according to a news release.
NLRB, meanwhile has been cracking down on anticompetitive labor practices and confidentiality provisions that prevent employees from speaking out.
In a February 2023 decision for instance, NLRB ruled that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by offering severance agreements to workers that include restrictive confidentiality and nondisparagement terms. In 2022, the NLRB and the Federal Trade Commission forged a partnership to more widely combat unfair, anticompetitive, and deceptive business practices.
“Noncompete provisions reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights when the provisions could reasonably be construed by employees to deny them the ability to quit or change jobs by cutting off their access to other employment opportunities that they are qualified for,” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in a 2023 release.
Ms. Abruzzo stressed in a memo that NLR Act is committed to an interagency approach to restrictions on the exercise of employee rights, “including limits to workers’ job mobility, information sharing, and referrals to other agencies.”
Mount Sinai Health System must respond to the NLRB’s complaint by July 16, and an administrative law judge is scheduled to hear the case on September 24.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.