Business of Medicine

Yes, there’s still much to find offensive, but South Park: The End of Obesity, in just 51 minutes, does more to explain some of obesity’s realities, its pharmacotherapy, and weight bias than the mainstream media has done perhaps ever. 

The mini-movie follows the plight of Eric Cartman, the fictional South Parkian child with severe obesity. 

South Park got everything right. The movie starts in a medical center where discussions with Cartman, his mother, and his doctor make it clear that obesity isn’t something that Cartman chose and is perhaps the most distressing aspect of his life. This certainly echoes study findings which report that quality-of-life scores in children with severe obesity are lower than those of children with newly diagnosed on-treatment cancers. As to how obesity erodes a child’s quality of life, no doubt part of its impact stems from obesity being a top source of schoolyard bullying, which is reflected by Cartman as he imagines his life without it. 

Cartman’s mother explains that of course they’ve tried diet and exercise, but that intentional behavior change alone hasn’t been sufficient to sustainably move the scale’s needle — a truth for the vast majority of people with obesity. But here, unlike in many actual doctors’ offices, Cartman’s doctor doesn’t spend time doubting or cajoling; instead, he does his job — which is to inform his patient, without judgment, about a pharmaceutical option that has proved to be beneficial. He accurately describes these medications as ushering in “a whole new era of medicine, a miracle really” that can “help people lose vast amounts of weight.”

The kicker, though, comes next. The doctor explains that insurance companies cover the medications only for patients with diabetes, “so if you can’t afford them, you’re just kind of out of luck.” This is changing somewhat now, at least here in Canada, where two of our main private insurers have changed their base coverages to make antiobesity medications something employers need to opt out of rather than opt into, but certainly they’re not covered by US Medicare for weight management, nor by our version of the same here in Canada.

But even for those who have coverage, there are hoops to jump through, which is highlighted by the incredible efforts made by Cartman and his friends to get his insurance plan to cover the medications. Thwarted at every turn, despite the undeniable benefits of these medications to health and quality of life, they are forced to turn to compounding — a phenomenon certainly pervasive here in North America whereby compounding pharmacies claim to be able to provide glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogs with comparable efficacy at a fraction of the price, but without the same rigor of proof of purity or efficacy. 

Also covered by South Park is that the GLP-1 analog supply is impacted by use by people who don’t meet approved medical criteria and are using the medications for aesthetic purposes. This speaks to the incredible societal pressure to be thin and to the comfort of some physicians to inappropriately prescribe these medications. This is covered by the subplot of South Park’s weed farmer, Randy, who in turn delivers an important insight into how it feels to use a GLP-1 analog: “I think there’s something wrong with these drugs ... I feel satisfied. With any drugs I want to do more and more, but with these drugs I feel like I want things less. With these drugs you don’t really crave anything.” The sentiment is echoed by Cartman, who exclaims, “I think I’m full. I’ve never known that feeling before in my life, but I’m full.”

It’s remarkable that South Park, a show built on serving up politically incorrect offense, covers obesity and its treatment with more accuracy, nuance, and compassion than does society as a whole. The show notes that obesity is a biological condition (it is), that when it comes to health (in America) “you have to have some f-ing willpower.” But where they explicitly mean having willpower in terms of filing and pursing insurance claims (you do), explains that drug companies are making antiobesity medications more expensive in America than anywhere else in the world (they are), and finally delivers this quote, which, while missing the biological basis of behavior and hunger with respect to obesity, certainly sums up why blame has no place in the discourse:

“We have sugar companies, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies all just trying to figure out how to make money off our health. It isn’t fair to put the blame on anyone for their weight.”

No, it’s not.

This movie should be required viewing in medical schools.
 

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, department of family medicine, University of Ottawa, and medical director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Yes, there’s still much to find offensive, but South Park: The End of Obesity, in just 51 minutes, does more to explain some of obesity’s realities, its pharmacotherapy, and weight bias than the mainstream media has done perhaps ever. 

The mini-movie follows the plight of Eric Cartman, the fictional South Parkian child with severe obesity. 

South Park got everything right. The movie starts in a medical center where discussions with Cartman, his mother, and his doctor make it clear that obesity isn’t something that Cartman chose and is perhaps the most distressing aspect of his life. This certainly echoes study findings which report that quality-of-life scores in children with severe obesity are lower than those of children with newly diagnosed on-treatment cancers. As to how obesity erodes a child’s quality of life, no doubt part of its impact stems from obesity being a top source of schoolyard bullying, which is reflected by Cartman as he imagines his life without it. 

Cartman’s mother explains that of course they’ve tried diet and exercise, but that intentional behavior change alone hasn’t been sufficient to sustainably move the scale’s needle — a truth for the vast majority of people with obesity. But here, unlike in many actual doctors’ offices, Cartman’s doctor doesn’t spend time doubting or cajoling; instead, he does his job — which is to inform his patient, without judgment, about a pharmaceutical option that has proved to be beneficial. He accurately describes these medications as ushering in “a whole new era of medicine, a miracle really” that can “help people lose vast amounts of weight.”

The kicker, though, comes next. The doctor explains that insurance companies cover the medications only for patients with diabetes, “so if you can’t afford them, you’re just kind of out of luck.” This is changing somewhat now, at least here in Canada, where two of our main private insurers have changed their base coverages to make antiobesity medications something employers need to opt out of rather than opt into, but certainly they’re not covered by US Medicare for weight management, nor by our version of the same here in Canada.

But even for those who have coverage, there are hoops to jump through, which is highlighted by the incredible efforts made by Cartman and his friends to get his insurance plan to cover the medications. Thwarted at every turn, despite the undeniable benefits of these medications to health and quality of life, they are forced to turn to compounding — a phenomenon certainly pervasive here in North America whereby compounding pharmacies claim to be able to provide glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogs with comparable efficacy at a fraction of the price, but without the same rigor of proof of purity or efficacy. 

Also covered by South Park is that the GLP-1 analog supply is impacted by use by people who don’t meet approved medical criteria and are using the medications for aesthetic purposes. This speaks to the incredible societal pressure to be thin and to the comfort of some physicians to inappropriately prescribe these medications. This is covered by the subplot of South Park’s weed farmer, Randy, who in turn delivers an important insight into how it feels to use a GLP-1 analog: “I think there’s something wrong with these drugs ... I feel satisfied. With any drugs I want to do more and more, but with these drugs I feel like I want things less. With these drugs you don’t really crave anything.” The sentiment is echoed by Cartman, who exclaims, “I think I’m full. I’ve never known that feeling before in my life, but I’m full.”

It’s remarkable that South Park, a show built on serving up politically incorrect offense, covers obesity and its treatment with more accuracy, nuance, and compassion than does society as a whole. The show notes that obesity is a biological condition (it is), that when it comes to health (in America) “you have to have some f-ing willpower.” But where they explicitly mean having willpower in terms of filing and pursing insurance claims (you do), explains that drug companies are making antiobesity medications more expensive in America than anywhere else in the world (they are), and finally delivers this quote, which, while missing the biological basis of behavior and hunger with respect to obesity, certainly sums up why blame has no place in the discourse:

“We have sugar companies, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies all just trying to figure out how to make money off our health. It isn’t fair to put the blame on anyone for their weight.”

No, it’s not.

This movie should be required viewing in medical schools.
 

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, department of family medicine, University of Ottawa, and medical director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Yes, there’s still much to find offensive, but South Park: The End of Obesity, in just 51 minutes, does more to explain some of obesity’s realities, its pharmacotherapy, and weight bias than the mainstream media has done perhaps ever. 

The mini-movie follows the plight of Eric Cartman, the fictional South Parkian child with severe obesity. 

South Park got everything right. The movie starts in a medical center where discussions with Cartman, his mother, and his doctor make it clear that obesity isn’t something that Cartman chose and is perhaps the most distressing aspect of his life. This certainly echoes study findings which report that quality-of-life scores in children with severe obesity are lower than those of children with newly diagnosed on-treatment cancers. As to how obesity erodes a child’s quality of life, no doubt part of its impact stems from obesity being a top source of schoolyard bullying, which is reflected by Cartman as he imagines his life without it. 

Cartman’s mother explains that of course they’ve tried diet and exercise, but that intentional behavior change alone hasn’t been sufficient to sustainably move the scale’s needle — a truth for the vast majority of people with obesity. But here, unlike in many actual doctors’ offices, Cartman’s doctor doesn’t spend time doubting or cajoling; instead, he does his job — which is to inform his patient, without judgment, about a pharmaceutical option that has proved to be beneficial. He accurately describes these medications as ushering in “a whole new era of medicine, a miracle really” that can “help people lose vast amounts of weight.”

The kicker, though, comes next. The doctor explains that insurance companies cover the medications only for patients with diabetes, “so if you can’t afford them, you’re just kind of out of luck.” This is changing somewhat now, at least here in Canada, where two of our main private insurers have changed their base coverages to make antiobesity medications something employers need to opt out of rather than opt into, but certainly they’re not covered by US Medicare for weight management, nor by our version of the same here in Canada.

But even for those who have coverage, there are hoops to jump through, which is highlighted by the incredible efforts made by Cartman and his friends to get his insurance plan to cover the medications. Thwarted at every turn, despite the undeniable benefits of these medications to health and quality of life, they are forced to turn to compounding — a phenomenon certainly pervasive here in North America whereby compounding pharmacies claim to be able to provide glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogs with comparable efficacy at a fraction of the price, but without the same rigor of proof of purity or efficacy. 

Also covered by South Park is that the GLP-1 analog supply is impacted by use by people who don’t meet approved medical criteria and are using the medications for aesthetic purposes. This speaks to the incredible societal pressure to be thin and to the comfort of some physicians to inappropriately prescribe these medications. This is covered by the subplot of South Park’s weed farmer, Randy, who in turn delivers an important insight into how it feels to use a GLP-1 analog: “I think there’s something wrong with these drugs ... I feel satisfied. With any drugs I want to do more and more, but with these drugs I feel like I want things less. With these drugs you don’t really crave anything.” The sentiment is echoed by Cartman, who exclaims, “I think I’m full. I’ve never known that feeling before in my life, but I’m full.”

It’s remarkable that South Park, a show built on serving up politically incorrect offense, covers obesity and its treatment with more accuracy, nuance, and compassion than does society as a whole. The show notes that obesity is a biological condition (it is), that when it comes to health (in America) “you have to have some f-ing willpower.” But where they explicitly mean having willpower in terms of filing and pursing insurance claims (you do), explains that drug companies are making antiobesity medications more expensive in America than anywhere else in the world (they are), and finally delivers this quote, which, while missing the biological basis of behavior and hunger with respect to obesity, certainly sums up why blame has no place in the discourse:

“We have sugar companies, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies all just trying to figure out how to make money off our health. It isn’t fair to put the blame on anyone for their weight.”

No, it’s not.

This movie should be required viewing in medical schools.
 

Dr. Freedhoff is associate professor, department of family medicine, University of Ottawa, and medical director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On any given day, oncologist Mark Lewis, MD, feels like he’s seesawing between two eras of technology. 

One minute, he’s working on sequencing a tumor genome. The next, he’s sifting through pages of disorganized data from a device that has been around for decades: the fax machine. 

“If two doctors’ offices aren’t on the same electronic medical record, one of the main ways to transfer records is still by fax,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “I can go from cutting-edge innovation to relying on, at best, 1980s information technology. It just boggles my mind.”

Dr. Lewis, who has posted about his frustration with fax machines, is far from alone. Oncologists are among the many specialists across the country at the mercy of telecopiers. 

According to a 2021 report by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, fax and mail continue to be the most common methods for hospitals and health systems to exchange care record summaries. In 2019, nearly 8 in 10 hospitals used mail or fax to send and receive health information, the report found. 

Fax machines are still commonplace across the healthcare spectrum, said Robert Havasy, MS, senior director for informatics strategy at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Inertia, cost, and more pressing priorities for hospitals and medical institutions contribute to the technology sticking around, he explained. 

“Post-COVID, my guess is we’re still at over 50% of healthcare practices using fax for some reason, on a daily basis,” Mr. Havasy said in an interview. “A lot of hospitals just don’t have the time, the money, or the staff to fix that problem because there’s always something a little higher up the priority chain they need to focus on.” 

If, for instance, “you’re going to do a process redesign to reduce hospital total acquired infections, your fax machine replacement might be 10th or 12th on the list. It just never gets up to 1 or 2 because it’s ‘not that much of a problem,’ ” he added.

Or is it?

Administrators may not view fax machines as a top concern, but clinicians who deal with the machines daily see it differently. 

“What worries me is we’re taking records out of an electronic storehouse [and] converting them to a paper medium,” Dr. Lewis said. “And then we are scanning into another electronic storehouse. The more steps, the more can be lost.”

And when information is lost, patient care can be compromised. 

Slower Workflows, Care Concerns

Although there are no published data on fax machine use in oncology specifically, this outdated technology does come into play in a variety of ways along the cancer care continuum. 

Radiation oncologist David R. Penberthy, MD, said patients often seek his cancer center’s expertise for second opinions, and that requires collecting patient records from many different practices. 

“Ideally, it would come electronically, but sometimes it does come by fax,” said Dr. Penberthy, program director of radiation oncology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “The quality of the fax is not always the best. Sometimes it’s literally a fax of a fax. You’re reading something that’s very difficult to read.” 

Orders for new tests are also typically sent and received via fax temporarily while IT teams work to integrate them into the electronic health record (EHR), Dr. Penberthy said. 

Insurers and third-party laboratories often send test results back by fax as well.

“Even if I haven’t actually sent my patient out of our institution, this crucial result may only be entered back into the record as a scanned document from a fax, which is not great because it can get lost in the other results that are reported electronically,” Dr. Lewis said. The risk here is that an ordering physician won’t see these results, which can lead to delayed or overlooked care for patients, he explained.

“To me, it’s like a blind spot,” Dr. Lewis said. “Every time we use a fax, I see it actually as an opportunity for oversight and missed opportunity to collect data.”

Dr. Penberthy said faxing can slow things down at his practice, particularly if he faxes a document to another office but receives no confirmation and has to track down what happened. 

As for cybersecurity, data that are in transit during faxing are generally considered secure and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Mr. Havasy of HIMSS. However, the Privacy Rule also requires that data remain secure while at rest, which isn’t always possible, he added. 

“That’s where faxes fall down, because generally fax machines are in public, if you will, or open areas in a hospital,” he said. “They just sit on a desk. I don’t know that the next nurse who comes up and looks through that stack was the nurse who was treating the patient.” 

Important decisions or results can also be missed when sent by fax, creating headaches for physicians and care problems for patients. 

Dr. Lewis recently experienced an insurance-related fax mishap over Memorial Day weekend. He believed his patient had access to the antinausea medication he had prescribed. When Dr. Lewis happened to check the fax machine over the weekend, he found a coverage denial for the medication from the insurer but, at that point, had no recourse to appeal because it was a long holiday weekend. 

“Had the denial been sent by an electronic means that was quicker and more readily available, it would have been possible to appeal before the holiday weekend,” he said. 

Hematologist Aaron Goodman, MD, encountered a similar problem after an insurer denied coverage of an expensive cancer drug for a patient and faxed over its reason for the denial. Dr. Goodman was not directly notified that the information arrived and didn’t learn about the denial for a week, he said. 

“There’s no ‘ding’ in my inbox if something is faxed over and scanned,” said Dr. Goodman, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health. “Once I realized it was denied, I was able to rectify it, but it wasted a week of a patient not getting a drug that I felt would be beneficial for them.”

Broader Health Policy Impacts

The use of outdated technology, such as fax machines, also creates ripple effects that burden the health system, health policy experts say. 

Duplicate testing and unnecessary care are top impacts, said Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of clinical informatics and digital transformation at the University of California, San Francisco.

Studies show that 20%-30% of the $65 billion spent annually on lab tests is used on unnecessary duplicate tests, and another estimated $30 billion is spent each year on unnecessary duplicate medical imaging. These duplicate tests may be mitigated if hospitals adopt certified EHR technology, research shows.

Still, without EHR interoperability between institutions, new providers may be unaware that tests or past labs for patients exist, leading to repeat tests, said Dr. Adler-Milstein, who researches health IT policy with a focus on EHRs. Patients can sometimes fill in the gaps, but not always. 

“Fax machines only help close information gaps if the clinician is aware of where to seek out the information and there is someone at the other organization to locate and transmit the information in a timely manner,” Dr. Adler-Milstein said. 

Old technology and poor interoperability also greatly affect data collection for disease surveillance and monitoring, said Janet Hamilton, MPH, executive director for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. This issue was keenly demonstrated during the pandemic, Ms. Hamilton said. 

“It was tragic, quite honestly,” she said. “There was such an immense amount of data that needed to be moved quickly, and that’s when computers are at their best.”

But, she said, “we didn’t have the level of systems in place to do it well.”

Specifically, the lack of electronic case reporting in place during the pandemic — where diagnoses are documented in the record and then immediately sent to the public health system — led to reports that were delayed, not made, or had missing or incomplete information, such as patients’ race and ethnicity or other health conditions, Ms. Hamilton said. 

Incomplete or missing data hampered the ability of public health officials and researchers to understand how the virus might affect different patients.

“If you had a chronic condition like cancer, you were less likely to have a positive outcome with COVID,” Ms. Hamilton said. “But because electronic case reporting was not in place, we didn’t get some of those additional pieces of information. We didn’t have people’s underlying oncology status to then say, ‘Here are individuals with these types of characteristics, and these are the things that happen if they also have a cancer.’” 

Slow, but Steady, Improvements

Efforts at the state and federal levels have targeted improved health information exchange, but progress takes time, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

Most states have some form of health information exchange, such as statewide exchanges, regional health information organizations, or clinical data registries. Maryland is often held up as a notable example for its health information exchange, Dr. Adler-Milstein noted.

According to Maryland law, all hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Health Care Commission are required to electronically connect to the state-designated health information exchange. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to connect all its 46 acute care hospitals in the sharing of real-time data. 

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provided federal-enhanced Medicaid matching funds to states through 2021 to support efforts to advance electronic exchange. Nearly all states used these funds, and most have identified other sources to sustain the efforts, according to a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, GAO found that small and rural providers are less likely to have the financial and technological resources to participate in or maintain electronic exchange capabilities.

Nationally, several recent initiatives have targeted health data interoperability, including for cancer care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Data Modernization Initiative is a multiyear, multi–billion-dollar effort to improve data sharing across the federal and state public health landscape. 

Meanwhile, in March 2024, the Biden-Harris administration launched United States Core Data for Interoperability Plus Cancer. The program will define a recommended minimum set of cancer-related data to be included in a patient’s EHR to enhance data exchange for research and clinical care. 

EHR vendors are also key to improving the landscape, said Dr. Adler-Milstein. Vendors such as Epic have developed strong sharing capabilities for transmitting health information from site to site, but of course, that only helps if providers have Epic, she said. 

“That’s where these national frameworks should help, because we don’t want it to break down by what EHR vendor you have,” she said. “It’s a patchwork. You can go to some places and hear success stories because they have Epic or a state health information exchange, but it’s very heterogeneous. In some places, they have nothing and are using a fax machine.”

Mr. Havasy believes fax machines will ultimately go extinct, particularly as a younger, more digitally savvy generation enters the healthcare workforce. He also foresees that the growing use of artificial intelligence will help eradicate the outdated technology. 

But, Ms. Hamilton noted, “unless we have consistent, ongoing, sustained funding, it is very hard to move off [an older] technology that can work. That’s one of the biggest barriers.” 

“Public health is about protecting the lives of every single person everywhere,” Ms. Hamilton said, “but when we don’t have the data that comes into the system, we can’t achieve our mission.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On any given day, oncologist Mark Lewis, MD, feels like he’s seesawing between two eras of technology. 

One minute, he’s working on sequencing a tumor genome. The next, he’s sifting through pages of disorganized data from a device that has been around for decades: the fax machine. 

“If two doctors’ offices aren’t on the same electronic medical record, one of the main ways to transfer records is still by fax,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “I can go from cutting-edge innovation to relying on, at best, 1980s information technology. It just boggles my mind.”

Dr. Lewis, who has posted about his frustration with fax machines, is far from alone. Oncologists are among the many specialists across the country at the mercy of telecopiers. 

According to a 2021 report by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, fax and mail continue to be the most common methods for hospitals and health systems to exchange care record summaries. In 2019, nearly 8 in 10 hospitals used mail or fax to send and receive health information, the report found. 

Fax machines are still commonplace across the healthcare spectrum, said Robert Havasy, MS, senior director for informatics strategy at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Inertia, cost, and more pressing priorities for hospitals and medical institutions contribute to the technology sticking around, he explained. 

“Post-COVID, my guess is we’re still at over 50% of healthcare practices using fax for some reason, on a daily basis,” Mr. Havasy said in an interview. “A lot of hospitals just don’t have the time, the money, or the staff to fix that problem because there’s always something a little higher up the priority chain they need to focus on.” 

If, for instance, “you’re going to do a process redesign to reduce hospital total acquired infections, your fax machine replacement might be 10th or 12th on the list. It just never gets up to 1 or 2 because it’s ‘not that much of a problem,’ ” he added.

Or is it?

Administrators may not view fax machines as a top concern, but clinicians who deal with the machines daily see it differently. 

“What worries me is we’re taking records out of an electronic storehouse [and] converting them to a paper medium,” Dr. Lewis said. “And then we are scanning into another electronic storehouse. The more steps, the more can be lost.”

And when information is lost, patient care can be compromised. 

Slower Workflows, Care Concerns

Although there are no published data on fax machine use in oncology specifically, this outdated technology does come into play in a variety of ways along the cancer care continuum. 

Radiation oncologist David R. Penberthy, MD, said patients often seek his cancer center’s expertise for second opinions, and that requires collecting patient records from many different practices. 

“Ideally, it would come electronically, but sometimes it does come by fax,” said Dr. Penberthy, program director of radiation oncology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “The quality of the fax is not always the best. Sometimes it’s literally a fax of a fax. You’re reading something that’s very difficult to read.” 

Orders for new tests are also typically sent and received via fax temporarily while IT teams work to integrate them into the electronic health record (EHR), Dr. Penberthy said. 

Insurers and third-party laboratories often send test results back by fax as well.

“Even if I haven’t actually sent my patient out of our institution, this crucial result may only be entered back into the record as a scanned document from a fax, which is not great because it can get lost in the other results that are reported electronically,” Dr. Lewis said. The risk here is that an ordering physician won’t see these results, which can lead to delayed or overlooked care for patients, he explained.

“To me, it’s like a blind spot,” Dr. Lewis said. “Every time we use a fax, I see it actually as an opportunity for oversight and missed opportunity to collect data.”

Dr. Penberthy said faxing can slow things down at his practice, particularly if he faxes a document to another office but receives no confirmation and has to track down what happened. 

As for cybersecurity, data that are in transit during faxing are generally considered secure and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Mr. Havasy of HIMSS. However, the Privacy Rule also requires that data remain secure while at rest, which isn’t always possible, he added. 

“That’s where faxes fall down, because generally fax machines are in public, if you will, or open areas in a hospital,” he said. “They just sit on a desk. I don’t know that the next nurse who comes up and looks through that stack was the nurse who was treating the patient.” 

Important decisions or results can also be missed when sent by fax, creating headaches for physicians and care problems for patients. 

Dr. Lewis recently experienced an insurance-related fax mishap over Memorial Day weekend. He believed his patient had access to the antinausea medication he had prescribed. When Dr. Lewis happened to check the fax machine over the weekend, he found a coverage denial for the medication from the insurer but, at that point, had no recourse to appeal because it was a long holiday weekend. 

“Had the denial been sent by an electronic means that was quicker and more readily available, it would have been possible to appeal before the holiday weekend,” he said. 

Hematologist Aaron Goodman, MD, encountered a similar problem after an insurer denied coverage of an expensive cancer drug for a patient and faxed over its reason for the denial. Dr. Goodman was not directly notified that the information arrived and didn’t learn about the denial for a week, he said. 

“There’s no ‘ding’ in my inbox if something is faxed over and scanned,” said Dr. Goodman, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health. “Once I realized it was denied, I was able to rectify it, but it wasted a week of a patient not getting a drug that I felt would be beneficial for them.”

Broader Health Policy Impacts

The use of outdated technology, such as fax machines, also creates ripple effects that burden the health system, health policy experts say. 

Duplicate testing and unnecessary care are top impacts, said Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of clinical informatics and digital transformation at the University of California, San Francisco.

Studies show that 20%-30% of the $65 billion spent annually on lab tests is used on unnecessary duplicate tests, and another estimated $30 billion is spent each year on unnecessary duplicate medical imaging. These duplicate tests may be mitigated if hospitals adopt certified EHR technology, research shows.

Still, without EHR interoperability between institutions, new providers may be unaware that tests or past labs for patients exist, leading to repeat tests, said Dr. Adler-Milstein, who researches health IT policy with a focus on EHRs. Patients can sometimes fill in the gaps, but not always. 

“Fax machines only help close information gaps if the clinician is aware of where to seek out the information and there is someone at the other organization to locate and transmit the information in a timely manner,” Dr. Adler-Milstein said. 

Old technology and poor interoperability also greatly affect data collection for disease surveillance and monitoring, said Janet Hamilton, MPH, executive director for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. This issue was keenly demonstrated during the pandemic, Ms. Hamilton said. 

“It was tragic, quite honestly,” she said. “There was such an immense amount of data that needed to be moved quickly, and that’s when computers are at their best.”

But, she said, “we didn’t have the level of systems in place to do it well.”

Specifically, the lack of electronic case reporting in place during the pandemic — where diagnoses are documented in the record and then immediately sent to the public health system — led to reports that were delayed, not made, or had missing or incomplete information, such as patients’ race and ethnicity or other health conditions, Ms. Hamilton said. 

Incomplete or missing data hampered the ability of public health officials and researchers to understand how the virus might affect different patients.

“If you had a chronic condition like cancer, you were less likely to have a positive outcome with COVID,” Ms. Hamilton said. “But because electronic case reporting was not in place, we didn’t get some of those additional pieces of information. We didn’t have people’s underlying oncology status to then say, ‘Here are individuals with these types of characteristics, and these are the things that happen if they also have a cancer.’” 

Slow, but Steady, Improvements

Efforts at the state and federal levels have targeted improved health information exchange, but progress takes time, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

Most states have some form of health information exchange, such as statewide exchanges, regional health information organizations, or clinical data registries. Maryland is often held up as a notable example for its health information exchange, Dr. Adler-Milstein noted.

According to Maryland law, all hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Health Care Commission are required to electronically connect to the state-designated health information exchange. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to connect all its 46 acute care hospitals in the sharing of real-time data. 

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provided federal-enhanced Medicaid matching funds to states through 2021 to support efforts to advance electronic exchange. Nearly all states used these funds, and most have identified other sources to sustain the efforts, according to a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, GAO found that small and rural providers are less likely to have the financial and technological resources to participate in or maintain electronic exchange capabilities.

Nationally, several recent initiatives have targeted health data interoperability, including for cancer care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Data Modernization Initiative is a multiyear, multi–billion-dollar effort to improve data sharing across the federal and state public health landscape. 

Meanwhile, in March 2024, the Biden-Harris administration launched United States Core Data for Interoperability Plus Cancer. The program will define a recommended minimum set of cancer-related data to be included in a patient’s EHR to enhance data exchange for research and clinical care. 

EHR vendors are also key to improving the landscape, said Dr. Adler-Milstein. Vendors such as Epic have developed strong sharing capabilities for transmitting health information from site to site, but of course, that only helps if providers have Epic, she said. 

“That’s where these national frameworks should help, because we don’t want it to break down by what EHR vendor you have,” she said. “It’s a patchwork. You can go to some places and hear success stories because they have Epic or a state health information exchange, but it’s very heterogeneous. In some places, they have nothing and are using a fax machine.”

Mr. Havasy believes fax machines will ultimately go extinct, particularly as a younger, more digitally savvy generation enters the healthcare workforce. He also foresees that the growing use of artificial intelligence will help eradicate the outdated technology. 

But, Ms. Hamilton noted, “unless we have consistent, ongoing, sustained funding, it is very hard to move off [an older] technology that can work. That’s one of the biggest barriers.” 

“Public health is about protecting the lives of every single person everywhere,” Ms. Hamilton said, “but when we don’t have the data that comes into the system, we can’t achieve our mission.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On any given day, oncologist Mark Lewis, MD, feels like he’s seesawing between two eras of technology. 

One minute, he’s working on sequencing a tumor genome. The next, he’s sifting through pages of disorganized data from a device that has been around for decades: the fax machine. 

“If two doctors’ offices aren’t on the same electronic medical record, one of the main ways to transfer records is still by fax,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “I can go from cutting-edge innovation to relying on, at best, 1980s information technology. It just boggles my mind.”

Dr. Lewis, who has posted about his frustration with fax machines, is far from alone. Oncologists are among the many specialists across the country at the mercy of telecopiers. 

According to a 2021 report by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, fax and mail continue to be the most common methods for hospitals and health systems to exchange care record summaries. In 2019, nearly 8 in 10 hospitals used mail or fax to send and receive health information, the report found. 

Fax machines are still commonplace across the healthcare spectrum, said Robert Havasy, MS, senior director for informatics strategy at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Inertia, cost, and more pressing priorities for hospitals and medical institutions contribute to the technology sticking around, he explained. 

“Post-COVID, my guess is we’re still at over 50% of healthcare practices using fax for some reason, on a daily basis,” Mr. Havasy said in an interview. “A lot of hospitals just don’t have the time, the money, or the staff to fix that problem because there’s always something a little higher up the priority chain they need to focus on.” 

If, for instance, “you’re going to do a process redesign to reduce hospital total acquired infections, your fax machine replacement might be 10th or 12th on the list. It just never gets up to 1 or 2 because it’s ‘not that much of a problem,’ ” he added.

Or is it?

Administrators may not view fax machines as a top concern, but clinicians who deal with the machines daily see it differently. 

“What worries me is we’re taking records out of an electronic storehouse [and] converting them to a paper medium,” Dr. Lewis said. “And then we are scanning into another electronic storehouse. The more steps, the more can be lost.”

And when information is lost, patient care can be compromised. 

Slower Workflows, Care Concerns

Although there are no published data on fax machine use in oncology specifically, this outdated technology does come into play in a variety of ways along the cancer care continuum. 

Radiation oncologist David R. Penberthy, MD, said patients often seek his cancer center’s expertise for second opinions, and that requires collecting patient records from many different practices. 

“Ideally, it would come electronically, but sometimes it does come by fax,” said Dr. Penberthy, program director of radiation oncology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “The quality of the fax is not always the best. Sometimes it’s literally a fax of a fax. You’re reading something that’s very difficult to read.” 

Orders for new tests are also typically sent and received via fax temporarily while IT teams work to integrate them into the electronic health record (EHR), Dr. Penberthy said. 

Insurers and third-party laboratories often send test results back by fax as well.

“Even if I haven’t actually sent my patient out of our institution, this crucial result may only be entered back into the record as a scanned document from a fax, which is not great because it can get lost in the other results that are reported electronically,” Dr. Lewis said. The risk here is that an ordering physician won’t see these results, which can lead to delayed or overlooked care for patients, he explained.

“To me, it’s like a blind spot,” Dr. Lewis said. “Every time we use a fax, I see it actually as an opportunity for oversight and missed opportunity to collect data.”

Dr. Penberthy said faxing can slow things down at his practice, particularly if he faxes a document to another office but receives no confirmation and has to track down what happened. 

As for cybersecurity, data that are in transit during faxing are generally considered secure and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Mr. Havasy of HIMSS. However, the Privacy Rule also requires that data remain secure while at rest, which isn’t always possible, he added. 

“That’s where faxes fall down, because generally fax machines are in public, if you will, or open areas in a hospital,” he said. “They just sit on a desk. I don’t know that the next nurse who comes up and looks through that stack was the nurse who was treating the patient.” 

Important decisions or results can also be missed when sent by fax, creating headaches for physicians and care problems for patients. 

Dr. Lewis recently experienced an insurance-related fax mishap over Memorial Day weekend. He believed his patient had access to the antinausea medication he had prescribed. When Dr. Lewis happened to check the fax machine over the weekend, he found a coverage denial for the medication from the insurer but, at that point, had no recourse to appeal because it was a long holiday weekend. 

“Had the denial been sent by an electronic means that was quicker and more readily available, it would have been possible to appeal before the holiday weekend,” he said. 

Hematologist Aaron Goodman, MD, encountered a similar problem after an insurer denied coverage of an expensive cancer drug for a patient and faxed over its reason for the denial. Dr. Goodman was not directly notified that the information arrived and didn’t learn about the denial for a week, he said. 

“There’s no ‘ding’ in my inbox if something is faxed over and scanned,” said Dr. Goodman, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health. “Once I realized it was denied, I was able to rectify it, but it wasted a week of a patient not getting a drug that I felt would be beneficial for them.”

Broader Health Policy Impacts

The use of outdated technology, such as fax machines, also creates ripple effects that burden the health system, health policy experts say. 

Duplicate testing and unnecessary care are top impacts, said Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of clinical informatics and digital transformation at the University of California, San Francisco.

Studies show that 20%-30% of the $65 billion spent annually on lab tests is used on unnecessary duplicate tests, and another estimated $30 billion is spent each year on unnecessary duplicate medical imaging. These duplicate tests may be mitigated if hospitals adopt certified EHR technology, research shows.

Still, without EHR interoperability between institutions, new providers may be unaware that tests or past labs for patients exist, leading to repeat tests, said Dr. Adler-Milstein, who researches health IT policy with a focus on EHRs. Patients can sometimes fill in the gaps, but not always. 

“Fax machines only help close information gaps if the clinician is aware of where to seek out the information and there is someone at the other organization to locate and transmit the information in a timely manner,” Dr. Adler-Milstein said. 

Old technology and poor interoperability also greatly affect data collection for disease surveillance and monitoring, said Janet Hamilton, MPH, executive director for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. This issue was keenly demonstrated during the pandemic, Ms. Hamilton said. 

“It was tragic, quite honestly,” she said. “There was such an immense amount of data that needed to be moved quickly, and that’s when computers are at their best.”

But, she said, “we didn’t have the level of systems in place to do it well.”

Specifically, the lack of electronic case reporting in place during the pandemic — where diagnoses are documented in the record and then immediately sent to the public health system — led to reports that were delayed, not made, or had missing or incomplete information, such as patients’ race and ethnicity or other health conditions, Ms. Hamilton said. 

Incomplete or missing data hampered the ability of public health officials and researchers to understand how the virus might affect different patients.

“If you had a chronic condition like cancer, you were less likely to have a positive outcome with COVID,” Ms. Hamilton said. “But because electronic case reporting was not in place, we didn’t get some of those additional pieces of information. We didn’t have people’s underlying oncology status to then say, ‘Here are individuals with these types of characteristics, and these are the things that happen if they also have a cancer.’” 

Slow, but Steady, Improvements

Efforts at the state and federal levels have targeted improved health information exchange, but progress takes time, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

Most states have some form of health information exchange, such as statewide exchanges, regional health information organizations, or clinical data registries. Maryland is often held up as a notable example for its health information exchange, Dr. Adler-Milstein noted.

According to Maryland law, all hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Health Care Commission are required to electronically connect to the state-designated health information exchange. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to connect all its 46 acute care hospitals in the sharing of real-time data. 

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provided federal-enhanced Medicaid matching funds to states through 2021 to support efforts to advance electronic exchange. Nearly all states used these funds, and most have identified other sources to sustain the efforts, according to a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, GAO found that small and rural providers are less likely to have the financial and technological resources to participate in or maintain electronic exchange capabilities.

Nationally, several recent initiatives have targeted health data interoperability, including for cancer care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Data Modernization Initiative is a multiyear, multi–billion-dollar effort to improve data sharing across the federal and state public health landscape. 

Meanwhile, in March 2024, the Biden-Harris administration launched United States Core Data for Interoperability Plus Cancer. The program will define a recommended minimum set of cancer-related data to be included in a patient’s EHR to enhance data exchange for research and clinical care. 

EHR vendors are also key to improving the landscape, said Dr. Adler-Milstein. Vendors such as Epic have developed strong sharing capabilities for transmitting health information from site to site, but of course, that only helps if providers have Epic, she said. 

“That’s where these national frameworks should help, because we don’t want it to break down by what EHR vendor you have,” she said. “It’s a patchwork. You can go to some places and hear success stories because they have Epic or a state health information exchange, but it’s very heterogeneous. In some places, they have nothing and are using a fax machine.”

Mr. Havasy believes fax machines will ultimately go extinct, particularly as a younger, more digitally savvy generation enters the healthcare workforce. He also foresees that the growing use of artificial intelligence will help eradicate the outdated technology. 

But, Ms. Hamilton noted, “unless we have consistent, ongoing, sustained funding, it is very hard to move off [an older] technology that can work. That’s one of the biggest barriers.” 

“Public health is about protecting the lives of every single person everywhere,” Ms. Hamilton said, “but when we don’t have the data that comes into the system, we can’t achieve our mission.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the latest survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that numerous critical systemic anticancer therapies, primarily generic drugs, are currently in shortage.

Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.

“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.

The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.

“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.

However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.

“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.

In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.

Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).

In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.

In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.

Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.

How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?

Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.

“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.

Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.

The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.

“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the latest survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that numerous critical systemic anticancer therapies, primarily generic drugs, are currently in shortage.

Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.

“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.

The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.

“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.

However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.

“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.

In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.

Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).

In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.

In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.

Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.

How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?

Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.

“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.

Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.

The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.

“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the latest survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that numerous critical systemic anticancer therapies, primarily generic drugs, are currently in shortage.

Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.

“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.

The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.

“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.

However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.

“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.

In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.

Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).

In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.

In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.

Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.

How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?

Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.

“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.

Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.

The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.

“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Medicaid acceptance among pediatric dermatologists varies significantly by practice type and region, with the highest rate among academic practices.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 352 actively practicing board-certified pediatric dermatologists using the Society for Pediatric Dermatology database and determined Medicaid acceptance status.
• They collected physician and practice characteristics from the US Census American Community Survey data and a web search.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 275 (78.1%) board-certified pediatric dermatologists accepted Medicaid.
• Academic practices had the highest Medicaid acceptance rate (98.7%), while private practices had the lowest (43.1%), a significant difference (P < .001).
• Acceptance rates were significantly higher in the Midwest (90.9%) than in the Northeast (71.8%) or West (71.4%; P = .005). Regional differences persisted after controlling for practice type: Midwest practice locations had greater odds of Medicaid acceptance than those in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 5.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-15.65) or West (OR, 5.26; 95% CI, 1.88-14.66).
• Practices in counties with lower median household incomes and greater densities of pediatric dermatologists were associated with higher Medicaid acceptance (P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“While most pediatric dermatologists accept Medicaid, this study revealed differential access to care based on practice type, geographic location, and density of pediatric dermatologists per county,” the authors wrote. More research is needed on “the impact on health outcomes when specialty services are unavailable” and on “the role of administrative and reimbursement barriers limiting Medicaid acceptance among pediatric dermatologists,” they added.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Madeleine Tessier-Kay, MPH, Department of Dermatology, at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, Connecticut. It was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include potential incomplete capture of board-certified physicians, as not all board-certified pediatric dermatologists may be members of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, and potential inaccurate capture of physician characteristics and Medicaid acceptance status.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. One author was a consultant for AbbVie. Other authors declared no competing interests.
 

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Medicaid acceptance among pediatric dermatologists varies significantly by practice type and region, with the highest rate among academic practices.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 352 actively practicing board-certified pediatric dermatologists using the Society for Pediatric Dermatology database and determined Medicaid acceptance status.
• They collected physician and practice characteristics from the US Census American Community Survey data and a web search.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 275 (78.1%) board-certified pediatric dermatologists accepted Medicaid.
• Academic practices had the highest Medicaid acceptance rate (98.7%), while private practices had the lowest (43.1%), a significant difference (P < .001).
• Acceptance rates were significantly higher in the Midwest (90.9%) than in the Northeast (71.8%) or West (71.4%; P = .005). Regional differences persisted after controlling for practice type: Midwest practice locations had greater odds of Medicaid acceptance than those in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 5.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-15.65) or West (OR, 5.26; 95% CI, 1.88-14.66).
• Practices in counties with lower median household incomes and greater densities of pediatric dermatologists were associated with higher Medicaid acceptance (P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“While most pediatric dermatologists accept Medicaid, this study revealed differential access to care based on practice type, geographic location, and density of pediatric dermatologists per county,” the authors wrote. More research is needed on “the impact on health outcomes when specialty services are unavailable” and on “the role of administrative and reimbursement barriers limiting Medicaid acceptance among pediatric dermatologists,” they added.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Madeleine Tessier-Kay, MPH, Department of Dermatology, at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, Connecticut. It was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include potential incomplete capture of board-certified physicians, as not all board-certified pediatric dermatologists may be members of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, and potential inaccurate capture of physician characteristics and Medicaid acceptance status.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. One author was a consultant for AbbVie. Other authors declared no competing interests.
 

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Medicaid acceptance among pediatric dermatologists varies significantly by practice type and region, with the highest rate among academic practices.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 352 actively practicing board-certified pediatric dermatologists using the Society for Pediatric Dermatology database and determined Medicaid acceptance status.
• They collected physician and practice characteristics from the US Census American Community Survey data and a web search.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 275 (78.1%) board-certified pediatric dermatologists accepted Medicaid.
• Academic practices had the highest Medicaid acceptance rate (98.7%), while private practices had the lowest (43.1%), a significant difference (P < .001).
• Acceptance rates were significantly higher in the Midwest (90.9%) than in the Northeast (71.8%) or West (71.4%; P = .005). Regional differences persisted after controlling for practice type: Midwest practice locations had greater odds of Medicaid acceptance than those in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 5.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-15.65) or West (OR, 5.26; 95% CI, 1.88-14.66).
• Practices in counties with lower median household incomes and greater densities of pediatric dermatologists were associated with higher Medicaid acceptance (P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“While most pediatric dermatologists accept Medicaid, this study revealed differential access to care based on practice type, geographic location, and density of pediatric dermatologists per county,” the authors wrote. More research is needed on “the impact on health outcomes when specialty services are unavailable” and on “the role of administrative and reimbursement barriers limiting Medicaid acceptance among pediatric dermatologists,” they added.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Madeleine Tessier-Kay, MPH, Department of Dermatology, at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, Connecticut. It was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include potential incomplete capture of board-certified physicians, as not all board-certified pediatric dermatologists may be members of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, and potential inaccurate capture of physician characteristics and Medicaid acceptance status.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. One author was a consultant for AbbVie. Other authors declared no competing interests.
 

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

Experts say the US Supreme Court’s ruling Friday to overturn the decades-old “Chevron doctrine” could severely restrict the ability of federal agencies to regulate all aspects of healthcare.

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, wrote on X, “my worry is that it will paralyze policymaking in healthcare and other areas,” because “Congress will try to fill in more details, making it harder to pass legislation.” He also wrote that federal agencies “will become very cautious in using their regulatory authority.”

In their 6-3 opinion reversing the “Chevron doctrine” — which has been followed since a 1984 Court opinion — the Justices said that the judiciary should no longer have to defer to federal agency interpretations of laws. Existing federal law “requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” said the Court, in stating why Chevron should be overruled.

Writing for the majority in the combined cases — Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote that “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision was a judicial power grab and would result in a “jolt to the legal system.” She was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The opinion will have many repercussions, said lawyer and Supreme Court watcher Amy Howe. The Chevron ruling has been “one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times,” she wrote on her blog.

For example, without the long-standing deference to agencies under Chevron, healthcare providers may have more opportunities to challenge how federal officials set Medicare reimbursement for hospital procedures or prescription drugs, Baker Donelson healthcare attorneys McKenna Cloud and Thomas Barnard wrote in an analysis.

Seventeen health organizations issued a joint statement signaling their disappointment. 

“We anticipate that today’s ruling will cause significant disruption to publicly funded health insurance programs, to the stability of this country’s healthcare and food and drug review systems, and to the health and well-being of the patients and consumers we serve,” wrote the organizations, which included American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, ALS Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Child Neurology Foundation, Epilepsy Foundation, Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Health Law Program, Physicians for Social Responsibility, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and Truth Initiative.

“It’s much harder for agencies to exercise power without some power to interpret statues. This is big,” wrote Berkeley Law Professor Orin Kerr on X.
 

A New, Uncertain Landscape for Healthcare

In the original Chevron case, the Court ruled that federal agencies had relevant expertise and should be given deference in resolving ambiguities that Congress had not spelled out in legislation.

In Relentless and Loper Bright, the plaintiffs argued that federal agencies overstepped their authority by issuing a rule that required commercial fishing vessels to pay for professional observers to monitor their catch.

In a statement after Friday’s ruling, the Relentless plaintiffs’ attorneys said that the decision “will recalibrate the balance of power between agencies and courts” and “make it harder for those agencies to adopt regulatory programs that exceed the authority conferred on them by Congress.”

Some predicted chaos in the wake of the ruling.

“Overturning Chevron could invite legal challenges to any and all agency determinations of ambiguous statutes by any stakeholder, leaving individual courts with the impractical task of determining the ‘correct’ meaning of statutes without the benefit of requisite expertise, practical experience, or public engagement,” wrote Sahil Agrawal, MD, PhD, Joseph S. Ross, MD, and Reshma Ramachandran, MD, in JAMA in an opinion piece in March that considered the ramifications of overturning Chevron.

“The spillover effects for medicine and public health, in turn, will be consequential,” they wrote.

In an analysis published in April, the Kaiser Family Foundation noted many potential ramifications on patient and consumer protections in the health insurance market. For instance, courts could vacate current rules governing protections under the Affordable Care Act, including that health plans offer a range of free preventive health services, such as breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening.
 

Congressional, White House Reaction

Many legal observers said the ruling will have the effect of requiring Congress to write ever-more dense and exacting legislation to prevent agencies from interpreting any gaps.

Some members of Congress welcomed the decision.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said in a statement, “The Constitution vests Congress with the sole authority to make law,” adding, “the Supreme Court made it clear today that our system of government leaves no room for an unelected bureaucracy to co-opt this authority for itself.”

In a post on X, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) accused the Court of siding with “special interests and giant corporations.” Added Mr. Schumer, “Their headlong rush to overturn 40 years of precedent and impose their own radical views is appalling.”

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement that “While this decision undermines the ability of federal agencies to use their expertise as Congress intended to make government work for the people, the Biden-Harris Administration will not relent in our efforts to protect and serve every American.”

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

Experts say the US Supreme Court’s ruling Friday to overturn the decades-old “Chevron doctrine” could severely restrict the ability of federal agencies to regulate all aspects of healthcare.

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, wrote on X, “my worry is that it will paralyze policymaking in healthcare and other areas,” because “Congress will try to fill in more details, making it harder to pass legislation.” He also wrote that federal agencies “will become very cautious in using their regulatory authority.”

In their 6-3 opinion reversing the “Chevron doctrine” — which has been followed since a 1984 Court opinion — the Justices said that the judiciary should no longer have to defer to federal agency interpretations of laws. Existing federal law “requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” said the Court, in stating why Chevron should be overruled.

Writing for the majority in the combined cases — Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote that “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision was a judicial power grab and would result in a “jolt to the legal system.” She was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The opinion will have many repercussions, said lawyer and Supreme Court watcher Amy Howe. The Chevron ruling has been “one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times,” she wrote on her blog.

For example, without the long-standing deference to agencies under Chevron, healthcare providers may have more opportunities to challenge how federal officials set Medicare reimbursement for hospital procedures or prescription drugs, Baker Donelson healthcare attorneys McKenna Cloud and Thomas Barnard wrote in an analysis.

Seventeen health organizations issued a joint statement signaling their disappointment. 

“We anticipate that today’s ruling will cause significant disruption to publicly funded health insurance programs, to the stability of this country’s healthcare and food and drug review systems, and to the health and well-being of the patients and consumers we serve,” wrote the organizations, which included American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, ALS Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Child Neurology Foundation, Epilepsy Foundation, Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Health Law Program, Physicians for Social Responsibility, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and Truth Initiative.

“It’s much harder for agencies to exercise power without some power to interpret statues. This is big,” wrote Berkeley Law Professor Orin Kerr on X.
 

A New, Uncertain Landscape for Healthcare

In the original Chevron case, the Court ruled that federal agencies had relevant expertise and should be given deference in resolving ambiguities that Congress had not spelled out in legislation.

In Relentless and Loper Bright, the plaintiffs argued that federal agencies overstepped their authority by issuing a rule that required commercial fishing vessels to pay for professional observers to monitor their catch.

In a statement after Friday’s ruling, the Relentless plaintiffs’ attorneys said that the decision “will recalibrate the balance of power between agencies and courts” and “make it harder for those agencies to adopt regulatory programs that exceed the authority conferred on them by Congress.”

Some predicted chaos in the wake of the ruling.

“Overturning Chevron could invite legal challenges to any and all agency determinations of ambiguous statutes by any stakeholder, leaving individual courts with the impractical task of determining the ‘correct’ meaning of statutes without the benefit of requisite expertise, practical experience, or public engagement,” wrote Sahil Agrawal, MD, PhD, Joseph S. Ross, MD, and Reshma Ramachandran, MD, in JAMA in an opinion piece in March that considered the ramifications of overturning Chevron.

“The spillover effects for medicine and public health, in turn, will be consequential,” they wrote.

In an analysis published in April, the Kaiser Family Foundation noted many potential ramifications on patient and consumer protections in the health insurance market. For instance, courts could vacate current rules governing protections under the Affordable Care Act, including that health plans offer a range of free preventive health services, such as breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening.
 

Congressional, White House Reaction

Many legal observers said the ruling will have the effect of requiring Congress to write ever-more dense and exacting legislation to prevent agencies from interpreting any gaps.

Some members of Congress welcomed the decision.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said in a statement, “The Constitution vests Congress with the sole authority to make law,” adding, “the Supreme Court made it clear today that our system of government leaves no room for an unelected bureaucracy to co-opt this authority for itself.”

In a post on X, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) accused the Court of siding with “special interests and giant corporations.” Added Mr. Schumer, “Their headlong rush to overturn 40 years of precedent and impose their own radical views is appalling.”

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement that “While this decision undermines the ability of federal agencies to use their expertise as Congress intended to make government work for the people, the Biden-Harris Administration will not relent in our efforts to protect and serve every American.”

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

Experts say the US Supreme Court’s ruling Friday to overturn the decades-old “Chevron doctrine” could severely restrict the ability of federal agencies to regulate all aspects of healthcare.

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, wrote on X, “my worry is that it will paralyze policymaking in healthcare and other areas,” because “Congress will try to fill in more details, making it harder to pass legislation.” He also wrote that federal agencies “will become very cautious in using their regulatory authority.”

In their 6-3 opinion reversing the “Chevron doctrine” — which has been followed since a 1984 Court opinion — the Justices said that the judiciary should no longer have to defer to federal agency interpretations of laws. Existing federal law “requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” said the Court, in stating why Chevron should be overruled.

Writing for the majority in the combined cases — Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote that “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision was a judicial power grab and would result in a “jolt to the legal system.” She was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The opinion will have many repercussions, said lawyer and Supreme Court watcher Amy Howe. The Chevron ruling has been “one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times,” she wrote on her blog.

For example, without the long-standing deference to agencies under Chevron, healthcare providers may have more opportunities to challenge how federal officials set Medicare reimbursement for hospital procedures or prescription drugs, Baker Donelson healthcare attorneys McKenna Cloud and Thomas Barnard wrote in an analysis.

Seventeen health organizations issued a joint statement signaling their disappointment. 

“We anticipate that today’s ruling will cause significant disruption to publicly funded health insurance programs, to the stability of this country’s healthcare and food and drug review systems, and to the health and well-being of the patients and consumers we serve,” wrote the organizations, which included American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, ALS Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Child Neurology Foundation, Epilepsy Foundation, Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Health Law Program, Physicians for Social Responsibility, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and Truth Initiative.

“It’s much harder for agencies to exercise power without some power to interpret statues. This is big,” wrote Berkeley Law Professor Orin Kerr on X.
 

A New, Uncertain Landscape for Healthcare

In the original Chevron case, the Court ruled that federal agencies had relevant expertise and should be given deference in resolving ambiguities that Congress had not spelled out in legislation.

In Relentless and Loper Bright, the plaintiffs argued that federal agencies overstepped their authority by issuing a rule that required commercial fishing vessels to pay for professional observers to monitor their catch.

In a statement after Friday’s ruling, the Relentless plaintiffs’ attorneys said that the decision “will recalibrate the balance of power between agencies and courts” and “make it harder for those agencies to adopt regulatory programs that exceed the authority conferred on them by Congress.”

Some predicted chaos in the wake of the ruling.

“Overturning Chevron could invite legal challenges to any and all agency determinations of ambiguous statutes by any stakeholder, leaving individual courts with the impractical task of determining the ‘correct’ meaning of statutes without the benefit of requisite expertise, practical experience, or public engagement,” wrote Sahil Agrawal, MD, PhD, Joseph S. Ross, MD, and Reshma Ramachandran, MD, in JAMA in an opinion piece in March that considered the ramifications of overturning Chevron.

“The spillover effects for medicine and public health, in turn, will be consequential,” they wrote.

In an analysis published in April, the Kaiser Family Foundation noted many potential ramifications on patient and consumer protections in the health insurance market. For instance, courts could vacate current rules governing protections under the Affordable Care Act, including that health plans offer a range of free preventive health services, such as breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening.
 

Congressional, White House Reaction

Many legal observers said the ruling will have the effect of requiring Congress to write ever-more dense and exacting legislation to prevent agencies from interpreting any gaps.

Some members of Congress welcomed the decision.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said in a statement, “The Constitution vests Congress with the sole authority to make law,” adding, “the Supreme Court made it clear today that our system of government leaves no room for an unelected bureaucracy to co-opt this authority for itself.”

In a post on X, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) accused the Court of siding with “special interests and giant corporations.” Added Mr. Schumer, “Their headlong rush to overturn 40 years of precedent and impose their own radical views is appalling.”

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement that “While this decision undermines the ability of federal agencies to use their expertise as Congress intended to make government work for the people, the Biden-Harris Administration will not relent in our efforts to protect and serve every American.”

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

She was young, neatly dressed, professional. I don’t remember her name, though she handed me a business card as soon as I stepped up to the front window.

I thought she was a new drug rep to my territory, and I usually try to say “hi” when they first come in. They’re just doing their job, and I don’t mind chatting for a few minutes.

But she, as it turned out, was here for a whole new thing. Taking out a glossy brochure, she dived into a spiel about my offering a medical credit card through my office. I would get paid quickly, I might even get some extra money from patient interest payments, it is convenient for patients, win-win situation all around, yadda yadda yadda.

I smiled, thanked her for coming in, but told her this wasn’t a good fit for my practice.

I’m well aware that keeping a small practice afloat ain’t easy. Medicine is one of the few fields (unless you’re strictly doing cash pay) where we can’t raise prices to keep up with inflation. Well, we can, but what we get paid won’t change. That’s the nature of dealing with Medicare and insurance. What you charge and what you’ll get (and have to accept) are generally not the same.

But even so, I try to stick with what I know — being a neurologist. I’m not here to offer a range of financial services. I have neither the time, nor interest, to run a patient’s copay while trying to sell them on a medical credit card.

For that matter I’m not going to set up shop selling vitamin supplements, hangover-curing infusions, endorsing products on X, or any of the other dubious things touted as “thinking outside the box” ways to increase revenue.

I suppose some will say I’m old-fashioned, or this is why my practice operates on a thin margin, or that I’m focusing more on patients than business. I don’t mind. Caring for patients is why I’m here.

I also hear the argument that if I don’t market a medical credit card (or whatever), someone else will. That’s fine. Let them. I wish them good luck. It’s just not for me.

Like I’ve said in the past, I’m an old dog, but a happy one. I’ll leave the new tricks to someone else.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

She was young, neatly dressed, professional. I don’t remember her name, though she handed me a business card as soon as I stepped up to the front window.

I thought she was a new drug rep to my territory, and I usually try to say “hi” when they first come in. They’re just doing their job, and I don’t mind chatting for a few minutes.

But she, as it turned out, was here for a whole new thing. Taking out a glossy brochure, she dived into a spiel about my offering a medical credit card through my office. I would get paid quickly, I might even get some extra money from patient interest payments, it is convenient for patients, win-win situation all around, yadda yadda yadda.

I smiled, thanked her for coming in, but told her this wasn’t a good fit for my practice.

I’m well aware that keeping a small practice afloat ain’t easy. Medicine is one of the few fields (unless you’re strictly doing cash pay) where we can’t raise prices to keep up with inflation. Well, we can, but what we get paid won’t change. That’s the nature of dealing with Medicare and insurance. What you charge and what you’ll get (and have to accept) are generally not the same.

But even so, I try to stick with what I know — being a neurologist. I’m not here to offer a range of financial services. I have neither the time, nor interest, to run a patient’s copay while trying to sell them on a medical credit card.

For that matter I’m not going to set up shop selling vitamin supplements, hangover-curing infusions, endorsing products on X, or any of the other dubious things touted as “thinking outside the box” ways to increase revenue.

I suppose some will say I’m old-fashioned, or this is why my practice operates on a thin margin, or that I’m focusing more on patients than business. I don’t mind. Caring for patients is why I’m here.

I also hear the argument that if I don’t market a medical credit card (or whatever), someone else will. That’s fine. Let them. I wish them good luck. It’s just not for me.

Like I’ve said in the past, I’m an old dog, but a happy one. I’ll leave the new tricks to someone else.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

She was young, neatly dressed, professional. I don’t remember her name, though she handed me a business card as soon as I stepped up to the front window.

I thought she was a new drug rep to my territory, and I usually try to say “hi” when they first come in. They’re just doing their job, and I don’t mind chatting for a few minutes.

But she, as it turned out, was here for a whole new thing. Taking out a glossy brochure, she dived into a spiel about my offering a medical credit card through my office. I would get paid quickly, I might even get some extra money from patient interest payments, it is convenient for patients, win-win situation all around, yadda yadda yadda.

I smiled, thanked her for coming in, but told her this wasn’t a good fit for my practice.

I’m well aware that keeping a small practice afloat ain’t easy. Medicine is one of the few fields (unless you’re strictly doing cash pay) where we can’t raise prices to keep up with inflation. Well, we can, but what we get paid won’t change. That’s the nature of dealing with Medicare and insurance. What you charge and what you’ll get (and have to accept) are generally not the same.

But even so, I try to stick with what I know — being a neurologist. I’m not here to offer a range of financial services. I have neither the time, nor interest, to run a patient’s copay while trying to sell them on a medical credit card.

For that matter I’m not going to set up shop selling vitamin supplements, hangover-curing infusions, endorsing products on X, or any of the other dubious things touted as “thinking outside the box” ways to increase revenue.

I suppose some will say I’m old-fashioned, or this is why my practice operates on a thin margin, or that I’m focusing more on patients than business. I don’t mind. Caring for patients is why I’m here.

I also hear the argument that if I don’t market a medical credit card (or whatever), someone else will. That’s fine. Let them. I wish them good luck. It’s just not for me.

Like I’ve said in the past, I’m an old dog, but a happy one. I’ll leave the new tricks to someone else.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance that does not require additional switching studies for biosimilars seeking interchangeability. These studies were previously recommended to demonstrate that switching between the biosimilar and its reference product showed no greater risk than using the reference product alone.

“The recommendations in today’s draft guidance, when finalized, will provide clarity and transparency about the FDA’s thinking and align the review and approval process with existing and emerging science,” said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the FDA’s Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in a statement on June 20. “We have gained valuable experience reviewing both biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar medications over the past 10 years. Both biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars meet the same high standard of biosimilarity for FDA approval and both are as safe and effective as the reference product.”

An interchangeable status allows a biosimilar product to be swapped with the reference product without involvement from the prescribing provider, depending on state law.

While switching studies were not required under previous FDA guidance, the 2019 document did state that the agency “expects that applications generally will include data from a switching study or studies in one or more appropriate conditions of use.”

However, of the 13 biosimilars that received interchangeability status, 9 did not include switching study data.

“Experience has shown that, for the products approved as biosimilars to date, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy is insignificant following single or multiple switches between a reference product and a biosimilar product,” the FDA stated. The agency’s investigators also conducted a systematic review of switching studies, which found no differences in risk for death, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuations in participants switched between biosimilars and reference products and those that remained on reference products.

“Additionally, today’s analytical tools can accurately evaluate the structure and effects [of] biologic products, both in the lab (in vitro) and in living organisms (in vivo) with more precision and sensitivity than switching studies,” the agency noted.

The FDA is now calling for commentary on these draft recommendations to be submitted by Aug. 20, 2024.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance that does not require additional switching studies for biosimilars seeking interchangeability. These studies were previously recommended to demonstrate that switching between the biosimilar and its reference product showed no greater risk than using the reference product alone.

“The recommendations in today’s draft guidance, when finalized, will provide clarity and transparency about the FDA’s thinking and align the review and approval process with existing and emerging science,” said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the FDA’s Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in a statement on June 20. “We have gained valuable experience reviewing both biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar medications over the past 10 years. Both biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars meet the same high standard of biosimilarity for FDA approval and both are as safe and effective as the reference product.”

An interchangeable status allows a biosimilar product to be swapped with the reference product without involvement from the prescribing provider, depending on state law.

While switching studies were not required under previous FDA guidance, the 2019 document did state that the agency “expects that applications generally will include data from a switching study or studies in one or more appropriate conditions of use.”

However, of the 13 biosimilars that received interchangeability status, 9 did not include switching study data.

“Experience has shown that, for the products approved as biosimilars to date, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy is insignificant following single or multiple switches between a reference product and a biosimilar product,” the FDA stated. The agency’s investigators also conducted a systematic review of switching studies, which found no differences in risk for death, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuations in participants switched between biosimilars and reference products and those that remained on reference products.

“Additionally, today’s analytical tools can accurately evaluate the structure and effects [of] biologic products, both in the lab (in vitro) and in living organisms (in vivo) with more precision and sensitivity than switching studies,” the agency noted.

The FDA is now calling for commentary on these draft recommendations to be submitted by Aug. 20, 2024.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance that does not require additional switching studies for biosimilars seeking interchangeability. These studies were previously recommended to demonstrate that switching between the biosimilar and its reference product showed no greater risk than using the reference product alone.

“The recommendations in today’s draft guidance, when finalized, will provide clarity and transparency about the FDA’s thinking and align the review and approval process with existing and emerging science,” said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the FDA’s Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in a statement on June 20. “We have gained valuable experience reviewing both biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar medications over the past 10 years. Both biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars meet the same high standard of biosimilarity for FDA approval and both are as safe and effective as the reference product.”

An interchangeable status allows a biosimilar product to be swapped with the reference product without involvement from the prescribing provider, depending on state law.

While switching studies were not required under previous FDA guidance, the 2019 document did state that the agency “expects that applications generally will include data from a switching study or studies in one or more appropriate conditions of use.”

However, of the 13 biosimilars that received interchangeability status, 9 did not include switching study data.

“Experience has shown that, for the products approved as biosimilars to date, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy is insignificant following single or multiple switches between a reference product and a biosimilar product,” the FDA stated. The agency’s investigators also conducted a systematic review of switching studies, which found no differences in risk for death, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuations in participants switched between biosimilars and reference products and those that remained on reference products.

“Additionally, today’s analytical tools can accurately evaluate the structure and effects [of] biologic products, both in the lab (in vitro) and in living organisms (in vivo) with more precision and sensitivity than switching studies,” the agency noted.

The FDA is now calling for commentary on these draft recommendations to be submitted by Aug. 20, 2024.

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

Two hospitals in California in recent months have been cited by state inspectors for allowing certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to practice beyond their scope, leading to one hospital temporarily stopping use of CRNAs in surgeries.

In one case, a CRNA changed a physician’s order from general anesthesia to spinal anesthesia for a patient who later became unresponsive and had to be transferred to another hospital, according to The Modesto Bee.

The unusual situation highlights the ongoing, often contentious debate about the proper role of CRNAs in surgery amid widely varying state scope of practice laws.

Elizabeth Bamgbose, CRNA, past president of the California Association of Nurse Anesthetists (CANA), said that the absence of CRNAs at Doctors Medical Center (DMC) in Modesto, California, had led to the cancellation of hundreds of procedures. It was an unnecessary step, she said.

“It’s unfortunate that a single surveyor has taken it upon themselves to reinterpret state regulations and redefine a practice that was efficient and safe,” said Ms. Bamgbose, a member of the CANA practice committee.

In late May, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued an “immediate jeopardy” warning about DMC of Modesto. The state agency, like its counterparts in other states, acts on behalf of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in surveying healthcare facilities. CMS defines immediate jeopardy as “a situation in which entity noncompliance has placed the health and safety of recipients in its care at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death.”

The administrative warning comes with fines and requires the facility to submit an action plan to remediate the situation. The state determines through a follow-up survey whether the plan is sufficient for the facility to avoid being dropped from participation in Medicare and Medicaid.

Before the immediate jeopardy action was taken against DMC, the state had issued three previous such warnings in 2024, according to the CDPH enforcement actions dashboard.
 

CRNA Claims to Be in Charge

Stanislaus Surgical Hospital in Modesto, California, was the first facility to attract CDPH attention. It reportedly was cited in August 2023 and January 2024 surveys for a number of violations of the CMS conditions of participation, including allowing nurse anesthetists to practice beyond their scope.

According to The Modesto Bee, CDPH issued an “immediate jeopardy” order for Stanislaus in January.

The paper reported that state regulators took issue with a CRNA claiming to be the lead manager of the hospital’s anesthesia group, referring to herself as the “chief CRNA.”

Jennifer Banek, MSN, CRNA, a member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology board, declined comment on the Stanislaus hospital but said that “it would not be unusual for a nurse anesthetist to serve as a leader, especially (for a) rural or underserved population.”

In April, CMS informed Stanislaus it was being terminated from Medicare, but several Congressional representatives from the Modesto area asked CMS to reconsider. The agency eventually reversed the sanction, The Modesto Bee reported.

CDPH subsequently cited DMC for CRNA scope of practice issues. A department spokesman said that CDPH teams went to DMC “to investigate practices that may not be compliant with state and federal requirements.” The agency declined to comment further until its investigations were complete.

CDPH is monitoring DMC to ensure the hospital complies with state requirements and will return for an unannounced follow-up survey “so it can provide safe, high-quality care to patients that need it,” the spokesperson said.

Although DMC would not confirm it on the record, the immediate jeopardy order led to the removal of all CRNAs, according to Ms. Banek, Ms. Bamgbose, and The Modesto Bee.

The hospital said in a statement that it is working with CDPH to address its concerns and will await a follow-up survey. “Our hospital will continue to fully participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs during this process.”
 

Scope of Practice Confusion?

Federal and state laws and hospital bylaws all prescribe what falls within the scope of practice for a CRNA, but uncertainty remains.

Twenty-five states — including California — have legally opted out of the federal CMS requirement that a physician supervise CRNAs.

But that does not supersede state laws or hospital bylaws governing practice, said American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) president Ronald Harter, MD.

Five states — Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon — have laws that allow nurse anesthetists to practice without physician oversight or involvement, said Dr. Harter, professor of anesthesiology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio.

“There’s a lot of various opinions on what exactly constitutes scope of practice of a nurse anesthetist,” Dr. Harter said. “The vast majority of them work under the direction of an anesthesiologist, and in those settings, it’s typically very clear to everybody who performs what tasks within the care team,” he said.

It’s less common for nurse anesthetists to work totally independent of physician oversight, he said.

Ms. Bamgbose, however, said there is no California statute requiring physician supervision of CRNAs.

The ASA maintains that CRNAs should always be under the supervision of a physician, which can be an anesthesiologist, obstetrician, gastroenterologist, surgeon, or other physician conducting a procedure. An anesthesiologist does not necessarily have to be physically on site, but in those circumstances, the physician conducting the procedure would be, said Dr. Harter.

Nurse anesthetists are “excellent advanced practice nurses,” Dr. Harter said. “But they haven’t been to medical school; they haven’t conducted a residency in anesthesiology. [They] don’t have the medical knowledge and skills that are required to manage the medical problems that patients either bring to the OR with them or that can arise during the time that they’re under anesthesia.”
 

Filling a Gap

Nurse anesthetists see things differently.

CRNAs, by virtue of their certification, can “practice to the full extent and to the full scope, which is complete service of anesthesia,” said Ms. Bamgbose. “You can practice independently of anyone, any type of supervision,” she said.

She acknowledges that “the bylaws of any institution will govern the scope at which any healthcare professional can practice at that institution.”

Most nurse anesthetists see themselves as independent practitioners.

Seventy-five percent of CRNAs who responded to a 2023 Medscape Medical News survey said they practice independently. But even Ms. Banek said that often, the meaning of “independent” is in the eye of the beholder. “It could mean different things to various providers, especially depending on the state that they are residing in,” she said.

Ms. Banek and Ms. Bamgbose said that CRNAs can help fill a gap in anesthesiology services in underserved areas.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there are currently 32,530 anesthesiologists in the United States, with California employing the largest number, at about 5300. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimated the number at 42,263 in 2022. But the federal Health Resources and Services Administration projects a shortage of 6300 anesthesiologists over the next 15 years.

Some 61,000 CRNAs are currently practicing, with 2400 graduating each year. They are required to be board-certified and are recredentialed every 4 years. By 2025, all will be required to have a doctoral degree. Most have already achieved that status, said Ms. Banek.

“Nurse anesthetists provide care predominantly to rural and underserved areas,” she said, adding, “In many rural hospitals across the country and in all three branches of the military, CRNAs practice autonomously.”

There are 3000 CRNAs in California, said Ms. Bamgbose. Nurse anesthetists are the only anesthesiology professionals in four of 58 California counties, she said.

Ms. Banek said she had heard that some 200 cases were canceled in 1 week at DMC due to the lack of CRNAs. Having physician supervision, which she called redundant, “is really creating a barrier to care,” she said.

“We have countless state and national studies that show the safety and efficacy of our practice,” said Ms. Bamgbose. “To interrupt that care ... is incredibly disruptive to the system.”

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

Two hospitals in California in recent months have been cited by state inspectors for allowing certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to practice beyond their scope, leading to one hospital temporarily stopping use of CRNAs in surgeries.

In one case, a CRNA changed a physician’s order from general anesthesia to spinal anesthesia for a patient who later became unresponsive and had to be transferred to another hospital, according to The Modesto Bee.

The unusual situation highlights the ongoing, often contentious debate about the proper role of CRNAs in surgery amid widely varying state scope of practice laws.

Elizabeth Bamgbose, CRNA, past president of the California Association of Nurse Anesthetists (CANA), said that the absence of CRNAs at Doctors Medical Center (DMC) in Modesto, California, had led to the cancellation of hundreds of procedures. It was an unnecessary step, she said.

“It’s unfortunate that a single surveyor has taken it upon themselves to reinterpret state regulations and redefine a practice that was efficient and safe,” said Ms. Bamgbose, a member of the CANA practice committee.

In late May, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued an “immediate jeopardy” warning about DMC of Modesto. The state agency, like its counterparts in other states, acts on behalf of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in surveying healthcare facilities. CMS defines immediate jeopardy as “a situation in which entity noncompliance has placed the health and safety of recipients in its care at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death.”

The administrative warning comes with fines and requires the facility to submit an action plan to remediate the situation. The state determines through a follow-up survey whether the plan is sufficient for the facility to avoid being dropped from participation in Medicare and Medicaid.

Before the immediate jeopardy action was taken against DMC, the state had issued three previous such warnings in 2024, according to the CDPH enforcement actions dashboard.
 

CRNA Claims to Be in Charge

Stanislaus Surgical Hospital in Modesto, California, was the first facility to attract CDPH attention. It reportedly was cited in August 2023 and January 2024 surveys for a number of violations of the CMS conditions of participation, including allowing nurse anesthetists to practice beyond their scope.

According to The Modesto Bee, CDPH issued an “immediate jeopardy” order for Stanislaus in January.

The paper reported that state regulators took issue with a CRNA claiming to be the lead manager of the hospital’s anesthesia group, referring to herself as the “chief CRNA.”

Jennifer Banek, MSN, CRNA, a member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology board, declined comment on the Stanislaus hospital but said that “it would not be unusual for a nurse anesthetist to serve as a leader, especially (for a) rural or underserved population.”

In April, CMS informed Stanislaus it was being terminated from Medicare, but several Congressional representatives from the Modesto area asked CMS to reconsider. The agency eventually reversed the sanction, The Modesto Bee reported.

CDPH subsequently cited DMC for CRNA scope of practice issues. A department spokesman said that CDPH teams went to DMC “to investigate practices that may not be compliant with state and federal requirements.” The agency declined to comment further until its investigations were complete.

CDPH is monitoring DMC to ensure the hospital complies with state requirements and will return for an unannounced follow-up survey “so it can provide safe, high-quality care to patients that need it,” the spokesperson said.

Although DMC would not confirm it on the record, the immediate jeopardy order led to the removal of all CRNAs, according to Ms. Banek, Ms. Bamgbose, and The Modesto Bee.

The hospital said in a statement that it is working with CDPH to address its concerns and will await a follow-up survey. “Our hospital will continue to fully participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs during this process.”
 

Scope of Practice Confusion?

Federal and state laws and hospital bylaws all prescribe what falls within the scope of practice for a CRNA, but uncertainty remains.

Twenty-five states — including California — have legally opted out of the federal CMS requirement that a physician supervise CRNAs.

But that does not supersede state laws or hospital bylaws governing practice, said American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) president Ronald Harter, MD.

Five states — Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon — have laws that allow nurse anesthetists to practice without physician oversight or involvement, said Dr. Harter, professor of anesthesiology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio.

“There’s a lot of various opinions on what exactly constitutes scope of practice of a nurse anesthetist,” Dr. Harter said. “The vast majority of them work under the direction of an anesthesiologist, and in those settings, it’s typically very clear to everybody who performs what tasks within the care team,” he said.

It’s less common for nurse anesthetists to work totally independent of physician oversight, he said.

Ms. Bamgbose, however, said there is no California statute requiring physician supervision of CRNAs.

The ASA maintains that CRNAs should always be under the supervision of a physician, which can be an anesthesiologist, obstetrician, gastroenterologist, surgeon, or other physician conducting a procedure. An anesthesiologist does not necessarily have to be physically on site, but in those circumstances, the physician conducting the procedure would be, said Dr. Harter.

Nurse anesthetists are “excellent advanced practice nurses,” Dr. Harter said. “But they haven’t been to medical school; they haven’t conducted a residency in anesthesiology. [They] don’t have the medical knowledge and skills that are required to manage the medical problems that patients either bring to the OR with them or that can arise during the time that they’re under anesthesia.”
 

Filling a Gap

Nurse anesthetists see things differently.

CRNAs, by virtue of their certification, can “practice to the full extent and to the full scope, which is complete service of anesthesia,” said Ms. Bamgbose. “You can practice independently of anyone, any type of supervision,” she said.

She acknowledges that “the bylaws of any institution will govern the scope at which any healthcare professional can practice at that institution.”

Most nurse anesthetists see themselves as independent practitioners.

Seventy-five percent of CRNAs who responded to a 2023 Medscape Medical News survey said they practice independently. But even Ms. Banek said that often, the meaning of “independent” is in the eye of the beholder. “It could mean different things to various providers, especially depending on the state that they are residing in,” she said.

Ms. Banek and Ms. Bamgbose said that CRNAs can help fill a gap in anesthesiology services in underserved areas.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there are currently 32,530 anesthesiologists in the United States, with California employing the largest number, at about 5300. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimated the number at 42,263 in 2022. But the federal Health Resources and Services Administration projects a shortage of 6300 anesthesiologists over the next 15 years.

Some 61,000 CRNAs are currently practicing, with 2400 graduating each year. They are required to be board-certified and are recredentialed every 4 years. By 2025, all will be required to have a doctoral degree. Most have already achieved that status, said Ms. Banek.

“Nurse anesthetists provide care predominantly to rural and underserved areas,” she said, adding, “In many rural hospitals across the country and in all three branches of the military, CRNAs practice autonomously.”

There are 3000 CRNAs in California, said Ms. Bamgbose. Nurse anesthetists are the only anesthesiology professionals in four of 58 California counties, she said.

Ms. Banek said she had heard that some 200 cases were canceled in 1 week at DMC due to the lack of CRNAs. Having physician supervision, which she called redundant, “is really creating a barrier to care,” she said.

“We have countless state and national studies that show the safety and efficacy of our practice,” said Ms. Bamgbose. “To interrupt that care ... is incredibly disruptive to the system.”

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

Two hospitals in California in recent months have been cited by state inspectors for allowing certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to practice beyond their scope, leading to one hospital temporarily stopping use of CRNAs in surgeries.

In one case, a CRNA changed a physician’s order from general anesthesia to spinal anesthesia for a patient who later became unresponsive and had to be transferred to another hospital, according to The Modesto Bee.

The unusual situation highlights the ongoing, often contentious debate about the proper role of CRNAs in surgery amid widely varying state scope of practice laws.

Elizabeth Bamgbose, CRNA, past president of the California Association of Nurse Anesthetists (CANA), said that the absence of CRNAs at Doctors Medical Center (DMC) in Modesto, California, had led to the cancellation of hundreds of procedures. It was an unnecessary step, she said.

“It’s unfortunate that a single surveyor has taken it upon themselves to reinterpret state regulations and redefine a practice that was efficient and safe,” said Ms. Bamgbose, a member of the CANA practice committee.

In late May, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued an “immediate jeopardy” warning about DMC of Modesto. The state agency, like its counterparts in other states, acts on behalf of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in surveying healthcare facilities. CMS defines immediate jeopardy as “a situation in which entity noncompliance has placed the health and safety of recipients in its care at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death.”

The administrative warning comes with fines and requires the facility to submit an action plan to remediate the situation. The state determines through a follow-up survey whether the plan is sufficient for the facility to avoid being dropped from participation in Medicare and Medicaid.

Before the immediate jeopardy action was taken against DMC, the state had issued three previous such warnings in 2024, according to the CDPH enforcement actions dashboard.
 

CRNA Claims to Be in Charge

Stanislaus Surgical Hospital in Modesto, California, was the first facility to attract CDPH attention. It reportedly was cited in August 2023 and January 2024 surveys for a number of violations of the CMS conditions of participation, including allowing nurse anesthetists to practice beyond their scope.

According to The Modesto Bee, CDPH issued an “immediate jeopardy” order for Stanislaus in January.

The paper reported that state regulators took issue with a CRNA claiming to be the lead manager of the hospital’s anesthesia group, referring to herself as the “chief CRNA.”

Jennifer Banek, MSN, CRNA, a member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology board, declined comment on the Stanislaus hospital but said that “it would not be unusual for a nurse anesthetist to serve as a leader, especially (for a) rural or underserved population.”

In April, CMS informed Stanislaus it was being terminated from Medicare, but several Congressional representatives from the Modesto area asked CMS to reconsider. The agency eventually reversed the sanction, The Modesto Bee reported.

CDPH subsequently cited DMC for CRNA scope of practice issues. A department spokesman said that CDPH teams went to DMC “to investigate practices that may not be compliant with state and federal requirements.” The agency declined to comment further until its investigations were complete.

CDPH is monitoring DMC to ensure the hospital complies with state requirements and will return for an unannounced follow-up survey “so it can provide safe, high-quality care to patients that need it,” the spokesperson said.

Although DMC would not confirm it on the record, the immediate jeopardy order led to the removal of all CRNAs, according to Ms. Banek, Ms. Bamgbose, and The Modesto Bee.

The hospital said in a statement that it is working with CDPH to address its concerns and will await a follow-up survey. “Our hospital will continue to fully participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs during this process.”
 

Scope of Practice Confusion?

Federal and state laws and hospital bylaws all prescribe what falls within the scope of practice for a CRNA, but uncertainty remains.

Twenty-five states — including California — have legally opted out of the federal CMS requirement that a physician supervise CRNAs.

But that does not supersede state laws or hospital bylaws governing practice, said American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) president Ronald Harter, MD.

Five states — Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon — have laws that allow nurse anesthetists to practice without physician oversight or involvement, said Dr. Harter, professor of anesthesiology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio.

“There’s a lot of various opinions on what exactly constitutes scope of practice of a nurse anesthetist,” Dr. Harter said. “The vast majority of them work under the direction of an anesthesiologist, and in those settings, it’s typically very clear to everybody who performs what tasks within the care team,” he said.

It’s less common for nurse anesthetists to work totally independent of physician oversight, he said.

Ms. Bamgbose, however, said there is no California statute requiring physician supervision of CRNAs.

The ASA maintains that CRNAs should always be under the supervision of a physician, which can be an anesthesiologist, obstetrician, gastroenterologist, surgeon, or other physician conducting a procedure. An anesthesiologist does not necessarily have to be physically on site, but in those circumstances, the physician conducting the procedure would be, said Dr. Harter.

Nurse anesthetists are “excellent advanced practice nurses,” Dr. Harter said. “But they haven’t been to medical school; they haven’t conducted a residency in anesthesiology. [They] don’t have the medical knowledge and skills that are required to manage the medical problems that patients either bring to the OR with them or that can arise during the time that they’re under anesthesia.”
 

Filling a Gap

Nurse anesthetists see things differently.

CRNAs, by virtue of their certification, can “practice to the full extent and to the full scope, which is complete service of anesthesia,” said Ms. Bamgbose. “You can practice independently of anyone, any type of supervision,” she said.

She acknowledges that “the bylaws of any institution will govern the scope at which any healthcare professional can practice at that institution.”

Most nurse anesthetists see themselves as independent practitioners.

Seventy-five percent of CRNAs who responded to a 2023 Medscape Medical News survey said they practice independently. But even Ms. Banek said that often, the meaning of “independent” is in the eye of the beholder. “It could mean different things to various providers, especially depending on the state that they are residing in,” she said.

Ms. Banek and Ms. Bamgbose said that CRNAs can help fill a gap in anesthesiology services in underserved areas.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there are currently 32,530 anesthesiologists in the United States, with California employing the largest number, at about 5300. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimated the number at 42,263 in 2022. But the federal Health Resources and Services Administration projects a shortage of 6300 anesthesiologists over the next 15 years.

Some 61,000 CRNAs are currently practicing, with 2400 graduating each year. They are required to be board-certified and are recredentialed every 4 years. By 2025, all will be required to have a doctoral degree. Most have already achieved that status, said Ms. Banek.

“Nurse anesthetists provide care predominantly to rural and underserved areas,” she said, adding, “In many rural hospitals across the country and in all three branches of the military, CRNAs practice autonomously.”

There are 3000 CRNAs in California, said Ms. Bamgbose. Nurse anesthetists are the only anesthesiology professionals in four of 58 California counties, she said.

Ms. Banek said she had heard that some 200 cases were canceled in 1 week at DMC due to the lack of CRNAs. Having physician supervision, which she called redundant, “is really creating a barrier to care,” she said.

“We have countless state and national studies that show the safety and efficacy of our practice,” said Ms. Bamgbose. “To interrupt that care ... is incredibly disruptive to the system.”

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

Halifax, Nova Scotia; American Samoa; Queens, New York; Lansing, Michigan; Gurugram, India. I often ask patients where they’re from. Practicing in San Diego, the answers are a geography lesson. People from around the world come here. I sometimes add the more interesting question: How’d you end up here? Many took the three highways to San Diego: the Navy, the defense industry (like General Dynamics), or followed a partner. My Queens patient had a better answer: Super Bowl XXII. On Sunday, Jan. 31st, 1988, the Redskins played the Broncos in San Diego. John Elway and the Broncos lost, but it didn’t matter. “I was scrapin’ the ice off my windshield that Monday morning when I thought, that’s it. I’m done! I drove to the garage where I worked and quit on the spot. Then I drove home and packed my bags.”

In a paper on how to make life decisions, this guy would be Exhibit A: “Don’t overthink it.” That approach might not be suitable for everyone, or for every decision. It might actually be an example of how not to make life decisions (more on that later). But, is there a best way to go about making big life decisions?

The first treatise on this subject was a paper by one Franklin, Ben in 1772. Providing advice to a friend on how to make a career decision, Franklin argued: “My way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one Pro and over the other Con.” This “moral algebra” as he called it was a framework to put rigor to a messy, organic problem.

Jeffrey Benabio, MD, MBA

The flaw in this method is that in the end you have two lists. Then what? Do the length of the lists decide? What if some factors are more important? Well, let’s add tools to help. You could use a spreadsheet and assign weights to each variable. Then sum the values and choose based on that. So if “not scraping ice off your windshield” is twice as important as “doubling your rent,” then you’ve got your answer. But what if you aren’t good at estimating how important things are? Actually, most of us are pretty awful at assigning weights to life variables – having bags of money is the consummate example. Seems important, but because of habituation, it turns out to not be sustainable. Note Exhibit B, our wealthy neighbor who owns a Lambo and G-Wagen (AMG squared, of course), who just parked a Cybertruck in his driveway. Realizing the risk of depending on peoples’ flawed judgment, companies instead use statistical modeling called bootstrap aggregating to “vote” on the weights for variables in a prediction. If you aren’t sure how important a new Rivian or walking to the beach would be, a model can answer that for you! It’s a bit disconcerting, I know. I mean, how can a model know what we’d like? Wait, isn’t that how Netflix picks stuff for you? Exactly.

Ok, so why don’t we just ask our friendly personal AI? “OK, ChatGPT, given what you know about me, where can I have it all?” Alas, here we slam into a glass wall. It seems the answer is out there but even our life-changing magical AI tools fail us. Mathematically, it is impossible to have it all. An illustrative example of this is called the economic “impossible trinity problem.” Even the most sophisticated algorithm cannot find an optional solution to some trinities such as fixed foreign exchange rate, free capital movement, and an independent monetary policy. Economists have concluded you must trade off one to have the other two. Impossible trinities are common in economics and in life. Armistead Maupin in his “Tales of the City” codifies it as Mona’s Law, the essence of which is: You cannot have the perfect job, the perfect partner, and the perfect house at the same time. (See Exhibit C, one Tom Brady).

This brings me to my final point, hard decisions are matters of the heart and experiencing life is the best way to understand its beautiful chaos. If making rash judgments is ill-advised and using technology cannot solve all problems (try asking your AI buddy for the square root of 2 as a fraction) what tools can we use? Maybe try reading more novels. They allow us to experience multiple lifetimes in a short time, which is what we need to learn what matters. Reading Dorothea’s choice at the end of “Middlemarch” is a nice example. Should she give up Lowick Manor and marry the penniless Ladislaw or keep it and use her wealth to help others? Seeing her struggle helps us understand how to answer questions like: Should I give up my academic practice or marry that guy or move to Texas? These cannot be reduced to arithmetic. The only way to know is to know as much of life as possible.

My last visit with my Queens patient was our last together. He’s divorced and moving from San Diego to Gallatin, Tennessee. “I’ve paid my last taxes to California, Doc. I decided that’s it, I’m done!” Perhaps he should have read “The Grapes of Wrath” before he set out for California in the first place.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Halifax, Nova Scotia; American Samoa; Queens, New York; Lansing, Michigan; Gurugram, India. I often ask patients where they’re from. Practicing in San Diego, the answers are a geography lesson. People from around the world come here. I sometimes add the more interesting question: How’d you end up here? Many took the three highways to San Diego: the Navy, the defense industry (like General Dynamics), or followed a partner. My Queens patient had a better answer: Super Bowl XXII. On Sunday, Jan. 31st, 1988, the Redskins played the Broncos in San Diego. John Elway and the Broncos lost, but it didn’t matter. “I was scrapin’ the ice off my windshield that Monday morning when I thought, that’s it. I’m done! I drove to the garage where I worked and quit on the spot. Then I drove home and packed my bags.”

In a paper on how to make life decisions, this guy would be Exhibit A: “Don’t overthink it.” That approach might not be suitable for everyone, or for every decision. It might actually be an example of how not to make life decisions (more on that later). But, is there a best way to go about making big life decisions?

The first treatise on this subject was a paper by one Franklin, Ben in 1772. Providing advice to a friend on how to make a career decision, Franklin argued: “My way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one Pro and over the other Con.” This “moral algebra” as he called it was a framework to put rigor to a messy, organic problem.

Jeffrey Benabio, MD, MBA

The flaw in this method is that in the end you have two lists. Then what? Do the length of the lists decide? What if some factors are more important? Well, let’s add tools to help. You could use a spreadsheet and assign weights to each variable. Then sum the values and choose based on that. So if “not scraping ice off your windshield” is twice as important as “doubling your rent,” then you’ve got your answer. But what if you aren’t good at estimating how important things are? Actually, most of us are pretty awful at assigning weights to life variables – having bags of money is the consummate example. Seems important, but because of habituation, it turns out to not be sustainable. Note Exhibit B, our wealthy neighbor who owns a Lambo and G-Wagen (AMG squared, of course), who just parked a Cybertruck in his driveway. Realizing the risk of depending on peoples’ flawed judgment, companies instead use statistical modeling called bootstrap aggregating to “vote” on the weights for variables in a prediction. If you aren’t sure how important a new Rivian or walking to the beach would be, a model can answer that for you! It’s a bit disconcerting, I know. I mean, how can a model know what we’d like? Wait, isn’t that how Netflix picks stuff for you? Exactly.

Ok, so why don’t we just ask our friendly personal AI? “OK, ChatGPT, given what you know about me, where can I have it all?” Alas, here we slam into a glass wall. It seems the answer is out there but even our life-changing magical AI tools fail us. Mathematically, it is impossible to have it all. An illustrative example of this is called the economic “impossible trinity problem.” Even the most sophisticated algorithm cannot find an optional solution to some trinities such as fixed foreign exchange rate, free capital movement, and an independent monetary policy. Economists have concluded you must trade off one to have the other two. Impossible trinities are common in economics and in life. Armistead Maupin in his “Tales of the City” codifies it as Mona’s Law, the essence of which is: You cannot have the perfect job, the perfect partner, and the perfect house at the same time. (See Exhibit C, one Tom Brady).

This brings me to my final point, hard decisions are matters of the heart and experiencing life is the best way to understand its beautiful chaos. If making rash judgments is ill-advised and using technology cannot solve all problems (try asking your AI buddy for the square root of 2 as a fraction) what tools can we use? Maybe try reading more novels. They allow us to experience multiple lifetimes in a short time, which is what we need to learn what matters. Reading Dorothea’s choice at the end of “Middlemarch” is a nice example. Should she give up Lowick Manor and marry the penniless Ladislaw or keep it and use her wealth to help others? Seeing her struggle helps us understand how to answer questions like: Should I give up my academic practice or marry that guy or move to Texas? These cannot be reduced to arithmetic. The only way to know is to know as much of life as possible.

My last visit with my Queens patient was our last together. He’s divorced and moving from San Diego to Gallatin, Tennessee. “I’ve paid my last taxes to California, Doc. I decided that’s it, I’m done!” Perhaps he should have read “The Grapes of Wrath” before he set out for California in the first place.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Halifax, Nova Scotia; American Samoa; Queens, New York; Lansing, Michigan; Gurugram, India. I often ask patients where they’re from. Practicing in San Diego, the answers are a geography lesson. People from around the world come here. I sometimes add the more interesting question: How’d you end up here? Many took the three highways to San Diego: the Navy, the defense industry (like General Dynamics), or followed a partner. My Queens patient had a better answer: Super Bowl XXII. On Sunday, Jan. 31st, 1988, the Redskins played the Broncos in San Diego. John Elway and the Broncos lost, but it didn’t matter. “I was scrapin’ the ice off my windshield that Monday morning when I thought, that’s it. I’m done! I drove to the garage where I worked and quit on the spot. Then I drove home and packed my bags.”

In a paper on how to make life decisions, this guy would be Exhibit A: “Don’t overthink it.” That approach might not be suitable for everyone, or for every decision. It might actually be an example of how not to make life decisions (more on that later). But, is there a best way to go about making big life decisions?

The first treatise on this subject was a paper by one Franklin, Ben in 1772. Providing advice to a friend on how to make a career decision, Franklin argued: “My way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one Pro and over the other Con.” This “moral algebra” as he called it was a framework to put rigor to a messy, organic problem.

Jeffrey Benabio, MD, MBA

The flaw in this method is that in the end you have two lists. Then what? Do the length of the lists decide? What if some factors are more important? Well, let’s add tools to help. You could use a spreadsheet and assign weights to each variable. Then sum the values and choose based on that. So if “not scraping ice off your windshield” is twice as important as “doubling your rent,” then you’ve got your answer. But what if you aren’t good at estimating how important things are? Actually, most of us are pretty awful at assigning weights to life variables – having bags of money is the consummate example. Seems important, but because of habituation, it turns out to not be sustainable. Note Exhibit B, our wealthy neighbor who owns a Lambo and G-Wagen (AMG squared, of course), who just parked a Cybertruck in his driveway. Realizing the risk of depending on peoples’ flawed judgment, companies instead use statistical modeling called bootstrap aggregating to “vote” on the weights for variables in a prediction. If you aren’t sure how important a new Rivian or walking to the beach would be, a model can answer that for you! It’s a bit disconcerting, I know. I mean, how can a model know what we’d like? Wait, isn’t that how Netflix picks stuff for you? Exactly.

Ok, so why don’t we just ask our friendly personal AI? “OK, ChatGPT, given what you know about me, where can I have it all?” Alas, here we slam into a glass wall. It seems the answer is out there but even our life-changing magical AI tools fail us. Mathematically, it is impossible to have it all. An illustrative example of this is called the economic “impossible trinity problem.” Even the most sophisticated algorithm cannot find an optional solution to some trinities such as fixed foreign exchange rate, free capital movement, and an independent monetary policy. Economists have concluded you must trade off one to have the other two. Impossible trinities are common in economics and in life. Armistead Maupin in his “Tales of the City” codifies it as Mona’s Law, the essence of which is: You cannot have the perfect job, the perfect partner, and the perfect house at the same time. (See Exhibit C, one Tom Brady).

This brings me to my final point, hard decisions are matters of the heart and experiencing life is the best way to understand its beautiful chaos. If making rash judgments is ill-advised and using technology cannot solve all problems (try asking your AI buddy for the square root of 2 as a fraction) what tools can we use? Maybe try reading more novels. They allow us to experience multiple lifetimes in a short time, which is what we need to learn what matters. Reading Dorothea’s choice at the end of “Middlemarch” is a nice example. Should she give up Lowick Manor and marry the penniless Ladislaw or keep it and use her wealth to help others? Seeing her struggle helps us understand how to answer questions like: Should I give up my academic practice or marry that guy or move to Texas? These cannot be reduced to arithmetic. The only way to know is to know as much of life as possible.

My last visit with my Queens patient was our last together. He’s divorced and moving from San Diego to Gallatin, Tennessee. “I’ve paid my last taxes to California, Doc. I decided that’s it, I’m done!” Perhaps he should have read “The Grapes of Wrath” before he set out for California in the first place.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In a cross-sectional study of malpractice and medical liability claims for cutaneous energy-based device procedures, the most litigated health professionals were plastic surgeons, and the most commonly affected anatomical sites were the face, head, and/or neck.

“The utilization of laser and energy-based devices (LEBD) has grown substantially,” corresponding author Scott Stratman, MD, MPH, and coauthors wrote in their study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “This has led to a rise in practitioners, both physicians and nonphysicians, who may lack the requisite training in LEBD procedures. Subsequently, procedures performed by these untrained practitioners have resulted in more lawsuits related to patient complications. As the demand for LEBD procedures and the number of practitioners performing these procedures increase, it remains paramount to characterize the trends of malpractice cases involving these procedures.”

Dr. Stratman, a dermatology resident at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and colleagues queried the LexisNexis database from 1985 to Sept. 30, 2023, for all state, federal, and appellate cases that included the terms “negligence” or “malpractice” and “skin” and “laser.” After they removed duplicate cases and excluded cases that did not report dermatologic complications or cutaneous energy-based procedures, the final analysis included 75 cases.

Most of the appellants/plaintiffs (66; 88%) were women, a greater number of cases were in the Northeast (26; 34.7%) and the South (23; 30.7%), and the fewest cases were in the Midwest (12 [16%]). The most common anatomical sites were the face, head, and/or neck, and 43 of the cases (57.3%) were decided in favor of the appellee/defendant or the party defending against the appeal, while 29 (38.7%) were in favor of the appellant/plaintiff or the party appealing, and three cases (4%) did not report a verdict.

In other findings, plastic surgeons were the most litigated healthcare professionals (18; 24%), while 39 of the overall cases (52%) involved nonphysician operators (NPOs), 32 (42.7%) involved a physician operator, and 4 cases (5.3%) did not name a device operator. The most common procedure performed in the included cases was laser hair removal (33; 44%). Complications from energy-based devices included burns, scarring, and pigmentation changes. Statistically significant associations were neither found between verdict outcome and appellee/defendant type nor found between energy-device operator or anatomical site.

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the LexisNexis database does not contain cases handled in out-of-court settlements and cases that underwent third-party arbitration.

“Physicians must recognize their responsibility when delegating procedures to NPOs and their role in supervision of these procedures,” they concluded. “Comprehensive training for physicians and their agents is necessary to diminish adverse outcomes and legal risks. Moreover, all practitioners should be held to the same standard of care. Familiarity with malpractice trends not only strengthens the patient-provider relationship but also equips providers with effective strategies to minimize the risk of legal repercussions.”

Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, said that it “reaffirms previous studies which show that laser hair removal continues to be the most litigated procedure in laser surgery, and that nonphysician operators are most commonly litigated against. It further reiterates the importance of close supervision and expert training of procedures delegated by physicians.”

Neither the authors nor Dr. Avram reported having relevant financial disclosures.

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

In a cross-sectional study of malpractice and medical liability claims for cutaneous energy-based device procedures, the most litigated health professionals were plastic surgeons, and the most commonly affected anatomical sites were the face, head, and/or neck.

“The utilization of laser and energy-based devices (LEBD) has grown substantially,” corresponding author Scott Stratman, MD, MPH, and coauthors wrote in their study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “This has led to a rise in practitioners, both physicians and nonphysicians, who may lack the requisite training in LEBD procedures. Subsequently, procedures performed by these untrained practitioners have resulted in more lawsuits related to patient complications. As the demand for LEBD procedures and the number of practitioners performing these procedures increase, it remains paramount to characterize the trends of malpractice cases involving these procedures.”

Dr. Stratman, a dermatology resident at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and colleagues queried the LexisNexis database from 1985 to Sept. 30, 2023, for all state, federal, and appellate cases that included the terms “negligence” or “malpractice” and “skin” and “laser.” After they removed duplicate cases and excluded cases that did not report dermatologic complications or cutaneous energy-based procedures, the final analysis included 75 cases.

Most of the appellants/plaintiffs (66; 88%) were women, a greater number of cases were in the Northeast (26; 34.7%) and the South (23; 30.7%), and the fewest cases were in the Midwest (12 [16%]). The most common anatomical sites were the face, head, and/or neck, and 43 of the cases (57.3%) were decided in favor of the appellee/defendant or the party defending against the appeal, while 29 (38.7%) were in favor of the appellant/plaintiff or the party appealing, and three cases (4%) did not report a verdict.

In other findings, plastic surgeons were the most litigated healthcare professionals (18; 24%), while 39 of the overall cases (52%) involved nonphysician operators (NPOs), 32 (42.7%) involved a physician operator, and 4 cases (5.3%) did not name a device operator. The most common procedure performed in the included cases was laser hair removal (33; 44%). Complications from energy-based devices included burns, scarring, and pigmentation changes. Statistically significant associations were neither found between verdict outcome and appellee/defendant type nor found between energy-device operator or anatomical site.

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the LexisNexis database does not contain cases handled in out-of-court settlements and cases that underwent third-party arbitration.

“Physicians must recognize their responsibility when delegating procedures to NPOs and their role in supervision of these procedures,” they concluded. “Comprehensive training for physicians and their agents is necessary to diminish adverse outcomes and legal risks. Moreover, all practitioners should be held to the same standard of care. Familiarity with malpractice trends not only strengthens the patient-provider relationship but also equips providers with effective strategies to minimize the risk of legal repercussions.”

Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, said that it “reaffirms previous studies which show that laser hair removal continues to be the most litigated procedure in laser surgery, and that nonphysician operators are most commonly litigated against. It further reiterates the importance of close supervision and expert training of procedures delegated by physicians.”

Neither the authors nor Dr. Avram reported having relevant financial disclosures.

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

In a cross-sectional study of malpractice and medical liability claims for cutaneous energy-based device procedures, the most litigated health professionals were plastic surgeons, and the most commonly affected anatomical sites were the face, head, and/or neck.

“The utilization of laser and energy-based devices (LEBD) has grown substantially,” corresponding author Scott Stratman, MD, MPH, and coauthors wrote in their study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “This has led to a rise in practitioners, both physicians and nonphysicians, who may lack the requisite training in LEBD procedures. Subsequently, procedures performed by these untrained practitioners have resulted in more lawsuits related to patient complications. As the demand for LEBD procedures and the number of practitioners performing these procedures increase, it remains paramount to characterize the trends of malpractice cases involving these procedures.”

Dr. Stratman, a dermatology resident at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and colleagues queried the LexisNexis database from 1985 to Sept. 30, 2023, for all state, federal, and appellate cases that included the terms “negligence” or “malpractice” and “skin” and “laser.” After they removed duplicate cases and excluded cases that did not report dermatologic complications or cutaneous energy-based procedures, the final analysis included 75 cases.

Most of the appellants/plaintiffs (66; 88%) were women, a greater number of cases were in the Northeast (26; 34.7%) and the South (23; 30.7%), and the fewest cases were in the Midwest (12 [16%]). The most common anatomical sites were the face, head, and/or neck, and 43 of the cases (57.3%) were decided in favor of the appellee/defendant or the party defending against the appeal, while 29 (38.7%) were in favor of the appellant/plaintiff or the party appealing, and three cases (4%) did not report a verdict.

In other findings, plastic surgeons were the most litigated healthcare professionals (18; 24%), while 39 of the overall cases (52%) involved nonphysician operators (NPOs), 32 (42.7%) involved a physician operator, and 4 cases (5.3%) did not name a device operator. The most common procedure performed in the included cases was laser hair removal (33; 44%). Complications from energy-based devices included burns, scarring, and pigmentation changes. Statistically significant associations were neither found between verdict outcome and appellee/defendant type nor found between energy-device operator or anatomical site.

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the LexisNexis database does not contain cases handled in out-of-court settlements and cases that underwent third-party arbitration.

“Physicians must recognize their responsibility when delegating procedures to NPOs and their role in supervision of these procedures,” they concluded. “Comprehensive training for physicians and their agents is necessary to diminish adverse outcomes and legal risks. Moreover, all practitioners should be held to the same standard of care. Familiarity with malpractice trends not only strengthens the patient-provider relationship but also equips providers with effective strategies to minimize the risk of legal repercussions.”

Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, said that it “reaffirms previous studies which show that laser hair removal continues to be the most litigated procedure in laser surgery, and that nonphysician operators are most commonly litigated against. It further reiterates the importance of close supervision and expert training of procedures delegated by physicians.”

Neither the authors nor Dr. Avram reported having relevant financial disclosures.

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