Health Policy

On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation that alerted me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”

Supreme Court of the United States

I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”

Few people took that case very seriously – barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.

Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ms. Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.

“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”

Ms. Ginsburg’s death could throw an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into even more turmoil. But in the longer term, her absence from the bench could accelerate a trend underway to get cases to the Supreme Court toward invalidating the ACA and rolling back reproductive freedoms for women.

Let’s take them one at a time.
 

The ACA under fire – again

The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.

Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.

Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to Mr. O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.

Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.

While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case, now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Mr. Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Mr. Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.

But without Ms. Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Mr. Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ms. Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.

At least 20 million Americans – and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.

Adult children under age 26 years would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.

But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.

A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.

As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”
 

Reproductive rights

A woman’s right to abortion – and even to birth control – also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Mr. Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Mr. Roberts argued.

Ms. Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly 3 decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.

Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench – which is what Trump has promised his supporters – would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

But not only is abortion on the line: The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.

And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.

For Ms. Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.

“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’ ” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation that alerted me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”

Supreme Court of the United States

I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”

Few people took that case very seriously – barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.

Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ms. Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.

“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”

Ms. Ginsburg’s death could throw an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into even more turmoil. But in the longer term, her absence from the bench could accelerate a trend underway to get cases to the Supreme Court toward invalidating the ACA and rolling back reproductive freedoms for women.

Let’s take them one at a time.
 

The ACA under fire – again

The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.

Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.

Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to Mr. O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.

Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.

While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case, now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Mr. Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Mr. Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.

But without Ms. Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Mr. Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ms. Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.

At least 20 million Americans – and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.

Adult children under age 26 years would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.

But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.

A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.

As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”
 

Reproductive rights

A woman’s right to abortion – and even to birth control – also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Mr. Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Mr. Roberts argued.

Ms. Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly 3 decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.

Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench – which is what Trump has promised his supporters – would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

But not only is abortion on the line: The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.

And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.

For Ms. Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.

“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’ ” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation that alerted me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”

Supreme Court of the United States

I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”

Few people took that case very seriously – barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.

Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ms. Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.

“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”

Ms. Ginsburg’s death could throw an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into even more turmoil. But in the longer term, her absence from the bench could accelerate a trend underway to get cases to the Supreme Court toward invalidating the ACA and rolling back reproductive freedoms for women.

Let’s take them one at a time.
 

The ACA under fire – again

The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.

Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.

Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to Mr. O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.

Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.

While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case, now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Mr. Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Mr. Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.

But without Ms. Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Mr. Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ms. Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.

At least 20 million Americans – and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.

Adult children under age 26 years would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.

But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.

A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.

As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”
 

Reproductive rights

A woman’s right to abortion – and even to birth control – also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Mr. Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Mr. Roberts argued.

Ms. Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly 3 decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.

Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench – which is what Trump has promised his supporters – would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

But not only is abortion on the line: The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.

And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.

For Ms. Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.

“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’ ” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized an increase in the relative value of evaluation and management (E/M) service codes effective January 1, 2021, which results in an overall decrease in the payment for procedural services in the Medicare program. (Due to the mandate for budget neutrality, an increase in relative value units [RVUs] for E/M resulted in a large decrease in the conversion factor—the number of dollars per RVU). This has increased payments for endocrinologists, rheumatologists, and family medicine clinicians and decreased payments for radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons.

In a major win for physicians, CMS proposes to simplify documentation requirements for billing and focus on the complexity of the medical decision making (MDM) or the total time needed to care for the patient on the date of the service as the foundation for determining the relative value of the service. Therefore, there is no more counting bullets—ie, we don’t have to perform a comprehensive physical exam or review of systems to achieve a high level code! Prior to this change, time was only available for coding purposes when counseling and coordination of care was the predominant service (>50%), and only face-to-face time with the patient was considered. Effective January 1, for office and other outpatient services, total time on the calendar date of the encounter will be used. This acknowledges the intensity and value of non–face-to-face work.

Acting through CMS, the federal government influences greatly the US health care system. CMS is an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services that administers the Medicare program and partners with state governments to administer the Health Insurance Exchanges, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance programs (CHIP).¹ In addition, CMS is responsible for enforcing quality care standards in long-term care facilities and clinical laboratories and the implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.¹

In January, CMS plans the following major changes to coding and documentation^2,3:

1. Selection of the level of E/M service will no longer require documentation of bullet points in the history, physical exam, and MDM. The simplified system allows physicians and qualified health care professionals to code either by total time (both face-to-face and non–face-to-face) on the date of the encounter or by level of MDM.
2. For established office patients, 5 levels of office-based evaluation and management services will be retained. CMS had initially proposed to reduce the number of office-based E/M codes from 5 to 3, combining code levels 2, 3, and 4 into 1 code.⁴ However, after receiving feedback from professional societies and the public, CMS abandoned the plan for radical simplification of coding levels.^2,3 Implementation of their proposal would have resulted in the same payment for treatment of a hang nail as for a complex gyn patient with multiple medical problems. Both patient advocacy groups and professional societies argued that incentives originally were misaligned.
3. For new office patients, since both 99201 and 99202 require straightforward MDM, the level 1 code (99201) has been eliminated, reducing the number of code levels from 5 to 4.
4. History and physical exam will no longer be used to determine code level for office E/M codes. These elements will be required only as medically appropriate. This means that documentation review will no longer focus on “bean counting” the elements in the history and physical exam.
5. Following a reassessment of the actual time required to provide E/M services in real-life practice, CMS plans to markedly increase the relative value of office visits for established patients and modestly increase the relative value of office visits for new patients. CMS operates under the principle of “neutral budgeting,” meaning that an increase of the relative value of E/M codes will result in a decrease in the payment for procedural codes. The actual RVUs for procedural services do not change; however, budget neutrality requires a decrease in the dollar conversion factor. The proposed changes will increase the payment for E/M services and decrease payments for procedural services.

Continue to: Refocusing practice on MDM complexity...

Refocusing practice on MDM complexity

The practice of medicine is a calling with great rewards. Prominent among those rewards are improving the health of women, children, and the community, developing deep and trusting relationships with patients, families, and clinical colleagues. The practice of medicine is also replete with a host of punishing administrative burdens, including prior authorizations, clunky electronic medical records, poorly designed quality metrics that are applied to clinicians, and billing compliance rules that emphasize the repetitive documentation of clinical information with minimal value.

Some of the most irritating aspects of medical practice are the CMS rules governing medical record documentation required for billing ambulatory office visits. Current coding compliance focuses on counting the number of systems reviewed in the review of systems; the documentation of past history, social history, and family history; the number of organs and organ elements examined during the physical examination; and the complexity of MDM.

In January 2021, CMS plans to adopt new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code descriptors for the office and other outpatient E/M services that sunset most of the “bean-counting” metrics and emphasize the importance of the complexity of MDM in guiding selection of a correct code.² Beginning in January 2021, clinicians will have the option of selecting an E/M code level based on the total amount of time required to provide the office visit service or the complexity of MDM. When selecting a code level based on MDM the new guidance emphasizes the importance of reviewing notes from other clinicians, reviewing test results, ordering of tests, and discussing and coordinating the care of the patient with other treating physicians. These changes reflect a better understanding of what is most important in good medical practice, promoting better patient care. TABLES 1 and 2 provide the initial guidance from CMS concerning selection of E/M code level based on time and MDM, respectively.² The guidance for using MDM to select an E/M code level is likely to evolve following implementation, so stay tuned. When using MDM to select a code, 2 of the 3 general categories are required to select that level of service.

Increase in the valuation of office-based E/M services

The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule uses a resource-based relative value system to determine time and intensity of the work of clinical practice. This system recognizes 3 major factors that influence the resources required to provide a service:

• work of the clinician
• practice expense for technical components
• cost of professional liability insurance.

Many primary care professional associations have long contended that CMS has undervalued office-based E/M services relative to procedures, resulting in the devaluing of primary care practice. After the CPT code descriptors were updated by the CPT editorial panel, 52 specialty societies surveyed their members to provide inputs to CMS on the time and intensity of the office and other outpatient E/M codes as currently practiced. The American Medical Association’s Specialty Society Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) reviewed the surveys and provided new inputs via open comment to CMS. CMS has responded to this feedback with a review of the intensity of clinical work required to provide an ambulatory visit service. In response to the review, CMS proposes to accept the recommendations of the RUC representing the house of medicine and increase the work and practice expense relative value assigned to new and established office visit codes. Overall, the combination of changes in relative values assigned for the work of the clinician and the expense of practice, increases the total value of office-based E/M codes for new patients by 7% to 14% and for established patients from 28% to 46% (see supplemental table in the sidebar at the end of this article).

Continue to: Decreased payments for procedural services...

Decreased payments for procedural services

Medicare is required to offset increased payment in one arena of health care delivery with decreased payment in other arenas of care, thereby achieving “budget-neutrality.” As detailed above, CMS plans to increase Medicare payments for office-based E/M services. Payment for services is calculated by multiplying the total RVUs for a particular service by a “conversion factor” (ie, number of dollars per RVU). To achieve budget-neutrality, CMS has proposed substantially reducing the conversion factor for 2021 (from $36.09 to $32.26), which will effectively decrease Medicare payments for procedural services since their RVUs have not changed. While the AMA RUC and many specialty societies continue to strongly advocate for the E/M work RVU increases to be included in the E/M components of 10- and 90-day global services, CMS has proposed to implement them only for “stand alone” E/M services.

Organizations are lobbying to delay or prevent the planned decrease in conversion factor, which results in substantial declines in payment for procedural services. (See "What do the Medicare billing changes mean for the Obstetrical Bundled services?" at the end of this article.) Due to the economic and clinical practice challenges caused by the corona­virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic it would be best if CMS did not reduce payments to physicians who are experts in procedural health care, thereby avoiding the risk of reduced access to these vital services.

If the current CMS changes in payment are implemented, endocrinologists, rheumatologists, and family physicians will have an increase in payment, and radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons will have a decrease in payment (TABLE 3).⁶ Obstetrics and gynecology is projected to have an 8% increase in Medicare payment. However, if an obstetrician-gynecologist derives most of their Medicare payments from surgical procedures, they are likely to have a decrease in payment from Medicare. Other payers will be incorporating the new coding structure for 2021; however, their payment structures and conversion factors are likely to vary. It is important to note that the RVUs for procedures have not changed. The budget neutrality adjustment resulted in a much lower conversion factor and therefore a decrease in payment for those specialties whose RVUs did not increase.

Bottom line

Working through the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs, CMS can influence greatly the practice of medicine including medical record documentation practices and payment rates for every clinical service. CMS proposes to end the onerous “bean counting” approach to billing compliance and refocus on the complexity of MDM as the foundation for selecting a billing code level. This change is long overdue, valuing the effective management of complex patients in office practice. Hopefully, CMS will reverse the planned reduction in the payment for procedural services, preserving patient access to important health care services. ●

What do the Medicare billing changes mean for the Obstetrical Bundled services?

---

The CY 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule was published electronically in the Federal Register on November 1, 2019. This final rule aligns the evaluation and management (E/M) coding and payment with changes recommended by the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Editorial Panel and American Medical Association’s (AMA) Specialty Society Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) for office/outpatient E/M visits. Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) did not agree with the RUC, AMA, and specialty societies that the E/M payment changes should be applicable across all global services that incorporate E/M visits—despite the fact that the values proposed by the RUC incorporated survey data from 52 specialties, representing most of medicine (including those specialties that predominantly perform procedures). Specifically, CMS expressed the view that the number of E/M visits within the 10- and 90-day global codes, as well as the maternity care bundle, were difficult to validate; therefore, the increased values would not be distributed to those procedural services.

Many professional societies expressed significant concerns about the resulting budget neutrality adjustments that would occur effective January 2021. The great news for ObGyns is that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was able to respond directly to CMS’s concerns with data to support the number of prenatal visits within the Obstetrical Bundle. Tapping into a de-identified, cloud-based data set of prenatal records—representing more than 1,100 obstetric providers with close to 30,000 recently completed pregnancies—ACOG was able to document both a mean and median number of prenatal visits across a broad geographic, payer, and patient demographic that supported the 13 prenatal visits in the Obstetrical Bundle.

With ACOG’s advocacy and ability to provide data to CMS, the proposed physician fee schedule rule for 2021 has proposed to incorporate the E/M increased reimbursement into the prenatal care codes. Now we urge the CMS to finalize this proposal. Although Medicare pays for a tiny number of pregnancies annually, we hope that all payers, including Medicaid and managed care plans, will agree with this acknowledgement of the increased work of evaluation and management that obstetricians provide during prenatal care. Join ACOG in telling CMS to finalize their proposal to increase the values of the global obstetric codes: https://acog.quorum.us/campaign/28579/.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized an increase in the relative value of evaluation and management (E/M) service codes effective January 1, 2021, which results in an overall decrease in the payment for procedural services in the Medicare program. (Due to the mandate for budget neutrality, an increase in relative value units [RVUs] for E/M resulted in a large decrease in the conversion factor—the number of dollars per RVU). This has increased payments for endocrinologists, rheumatologists, and family medicine clinicians and decreased payments for radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons.

In a major win for physicians, CMS proposes to simplify documentation requirements for billing and focus on the complexity of the medical decision making (MDM) or the total time needed to care for the patient on the date of the service as the foundation for determining the relative value of the service. Therefore, there is no more counting bullets—ie, we don’t have to perform a comprehensive physical exam or review of systems to achieve a high level code! Prior to this change, time was only available for coding purposes when counseling and coordination of care was the predominant service (>50%), and only face-to-face time with the patient was considered. Effective January 1, for office and other outpatient services, total time on the calendar date of the encounter will be used. This acknowledges the intensity and value of non–face-to-face work.

Acting through CMS, the federal government influences greatly the US health care system. CMS is an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services that administers the Medicare program and partners with state governments to administer the Health Insurance Exchanges, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance programs (CHIP).¹ In addition, CMS is responsible for enforcing quality care standards in long-term care facilities and clinical laboratories and the implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.¹

In January, CMS plans the following major changes to coding and documentation^2,3:

1. Selection of the level of E/M service will no longer require documentation of bullet points in the history, physical exam, and MDM. The simplified system allows physicians and qualified health care professionals to code either by total time (both face-to-face and non–face-to-face) on the date of the encounter or by level of MDM.
2. For established office patients, 5 levels of office-based evaluation and management services will be retained. CMS had initially proposed to reduce the number of office-based E/M codes from 5 to 3, combining code levels 2, 3, and 4 into 1 code.⁴ However, after receiving feedback from professional societies and the public, CMS abandoned the plan for radical simplification of coding levels.^2,3 Implementation of their proposal would have resulted in the same payment for treatment of a hang nail as for a complex gyn patient with multiple medical problems. Both patient advocacy groups and professional societies argued that incentives originally were misaligned.
3. For new office patients, since both 99201 and 99202 require straightforward MDM, the level 1 code (99201) has been eliminated, reducing the number of code levels from 5 to 4.
4. History and physical exam will no longer be used to determine code level for office E/M codes. These elements will be required only as medically appropriate. This means that documentation review will no longer focus on “bean counting” the elements in the history and physical exam.
5. Following a reassessment of the actual time required to provide E/M services in real-life practice, CMS plans to markedly increase the relative value of office visits for established patients and modestly increase the relative value of office visits for new patients. CMS operates under the principle of “neutral budgeting,” meaning that an increase of the relative value of E/M codes will result in a decrease in the payment for procedural codes. The actual RVUs for procedural services do not change; however, budget neutrality requires a decrease in the dollar conversion factor. The proposed changes will increase the payment for E/M services and decrease payments for procedural services.

Continue to: Refocusing practice on MDM complexity...

Refocusing practice on MDM complexity

The practice of medicine is a calling with great rewards. Prominent among those rewards are improving the health of women, children, and the community, developing deep and trusting relationships with patients, families, and clinical colleagues. The practice of medicine is also replete with a host of punishing administrative burdens, including prior authorizations, clunky electronic medical records, poorly designed quality metrics that are applied to clinicians, and billing compliance rules that emphasize the repetitive documentation of clinical information with minimal value.

Some of the most irritating aspects of medical practice are the CMS rules governing medical record documentation required for billing ambulatory office visits. Current coding compliance focuses on counting the number of systems reviewed in the review of systems; the documentation of past history, social history, and family history; the number of organs and organ elements examined during the physical examination; and the complexity of MDM.

In January 2021, CMS plans to adopt new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code descriptors for the office and other outpatient E/M services that sunset most of the “bean-counting” metrics and emphasize the importance of the complexity of MDM in guiding selection of a correct code.² Beginning in January 2021, clinicians will have the option of selecting an E/M code level based on the total amount of time required to provide the office visit service or the complexity of MDM. When selecting a code level based on MDM the new guidance emphasizes the importance of reviewing notes from other clinicians, reviewing test results, ordering of tests, and discussing and coordinating the care of the patient with other treating physicians. These changes reflect a better understanding of what is most important in good medical practice, promoting better patient care. TABLES 1 and 2 provide the initial guidance from CMS concerning selection of E/M code level based on time and MDM, respectively.² The guidance for using MDM to select an E/M code level is likely to evolve following implementation, so stay tuned. When using MDM to select a code, 2 of the 3 general categories are required to select that level of service.

Increase in the valuation of office-based E/M services

The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule uses a resource-based relative value system to determine time and intensity of the work of clinical practice. This system recognizes 3 major factors that influence the resources required to provide a service:

• work of the clinician
• practice expense for technical components
• cost of professional liability insurance.

Many primary care professional associations have long contended that CMS has undervalued office-based E/M services relative to procedures, resulting in the devaluing of primary care practice. After the CPT code descriptors were updated by the CPT editorial panel, 52 specialty societies surveyed their members to provide inputs to CMS on the time and intensity of the office and other outpatient E/M codes as currently practiced. The American Medical Association’s Specialty Society Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) reviewed the surveys and provided new inputs via open comment to CMS. CMS has responded to this feedback with a review of the intensity of clinical work required to provide an ambulatory visit service. In response to the review, CMS proposes to accept the recommendations of the RUC representing the house of medicine and increase the work and practice expense relative value assigned to new and established office visit codes. Overall, the combination of changes in relative values assigned for the work of the clinician and the expense of practice, increases the total value of office-based E/M codes for new patients by 7% to 14% and for established patients from 28% to 46% (see supplemental table in the sidebar at the end of this article).

Continue to: Decreased payments for procedural services...

Decreased payments for procedural services

Medicare is required to offset increased payment in one arena of health care delivery with decreased payment in other arenas of care, thereby achieving “budget-neutrality.” As detailed above, CMS plans to increase Medicare payments for office-based E/M services. Payment for services is calculated by multiplying the total RVUs for a particular service by a “conversion factor” (ie, number of dollars per RVU). To achieve budget-neutrality, CMS has proposed substantially reducing the conversion factor for 2021 (from $36.09 to $32.26), which will effectively decrease Medicare payments for procedural services since their RVUs have not changed. While the AMA RUC and many specialty societies continue to strongly advocate for the E/M work RVU increases to be included in the E/M components of 10- and 90-day global services, CMS has proposed to implement them only for “stand alone” E/M services.

Organizations are lobbying to delay or prevent the planned decrease in conversion factor, which results in substantial declines in payment for procedural services. (See "What do the Medicare billing changes mean for the Obstetrical Bundled services?" at the end of this article.) Due to the economic and clinical practice challenges caused by the corona­virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic it would be best if CMS did not reduce payments to physicians who are experts in procedural health care, thereby avoiding the risk of reduced access to these vital services.

If the current CMS changes in payment are implemented, endocrinologists, rheumatologists, and family physicians will have an increase in payment, and radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons will have a decrease in payment (TABLE 3).⁶ Obstetrics and gynecology is projected to have an 8% increase in Medicare payment. However, if an obstetrician-gynecologist derives most of their Medicare payments from surgical procedures, they are likely to have a decrease in payment from Medicare. Other payers will be incorporating the new coding structure for 2021; however, their payment structures and conversion factors are likely to vary. It is important to note that the RVUs for procedures have not changed. The budget neutrality adjustment resulted in a much lower conversion factor and therefore a decrease in payment for those specialties whose RVUs did not increase.

Bottom line

Working through the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs, CMS can influence greatly the practice of medicine including medical record documentation practices and payment rates for every clinical service. CMS proposes to end the onerous “bean counting” approach to billing compliance and refocus on the complexity of MDM as the foundation for selecting a billing code level. This change is long overdue, valuing the effective management of complex patients in office practice. Hopefully, CMS will reverse the planned reduction in the payment for procedural services, preserving patient access to important health care services. ●

What do the Medicare billing changes mean for the Obstetrical Bundled services?

---

The CY 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule was published electronically in the Federal Register on November 1, 2019. This final rule aligns the evaluation and management (E/M) coding and payment with changes recommended by the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Editorial Panel and American Medical Association’s (AMA) Specialty Society Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) for office/outpatient E/M visits. Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) did not agree with the RUC, AMA, and specialty societies that the E/M payment changes should be applicable across all global services that incorporate E/M visits—despite the fact that the values proposed by the RUC incorporated survey data from 52 specialties, representing most of medicine (including those specialties that predominantly perform procedures). Specifically, CMS expressed the view that the number of E/M visits within the 10- and 90-day global codes, as well as the maternity care bundle, were difficult to validate; therefore, the increased values would not be distributed to those procedural services.

Many professional societies expressed significant concerns about the resulting budget neutrality adjustments that would occur effective January 2021. The great news for ObGyns is that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was able to respond directly to CMS’s concerns with data to support the number of prenatal visits within the Obstetrical Bundle. Tapping into a de-identified, cloud-based data set of prenatal records—representing more than 1,100 obstetric providers with close to 30,000 recently completed pregnancies—ACOG was able to document both a mean and median number of prenatal visits across a broad geographic, payer, and patient demographic that supported the 13 prenatal visits in the Obstetrical Bundle.

With ACOG’s advocacy and ability to provide data to CMS, the proposed physician fee schedule rule for 2021 has proposed to incorporate the E/M increased reimbursement into the prenatal care codes. Now we urge the CMS to finalize this proposal. Although Medicare pays for a tiny number of pregnancies annually, we hope that all payers, including Medicaid and managed care plans, will agree with this acknowledgement of the increased work of evaluation and management that obstetricians provide during prenatal care. Join ACOG in telling CMS to finalize their proposal to increase the values of the global obstetric codes: https://acog.quorum.us/campaign/28579/.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized an increase in the relative value of evaluation and management (E/M) service codes effective January 1, 2021, which results in an overall decrease in the payment for procedural services in the Medicare program. (Due to the mandate for budget neutrality, an increase in relative value units [RVUs] for E/M resulted in a large decrease in the conversion factor—the number of dollars per RVU). This has increased payments for endocrinologists, rheumatologists, and family medicine clinicians and decreased payments for radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons.

In a major win for physicians, CMS proposes to simplify documentation requirements for billing and focus on the complexity of the medical decision making (MDM) or the total time needed to care for the patient on the date of the service as the foundation for determining the relative value of the service. Therefore, there is no more counting bullets—ie, we don’t have to perform a comprehensive physical exam or review of systems to achieve a high level code! Prior to this change, time was only available for coding purposes when counseling and coordination of care was the predominant service (>50%), and only face-to-face time with the patient was considered. Effective January 1, for office and other outpatient services, total time on the calendar date of the encounter will be used. This acknowledges the intensity and value of non–face-to-face work.

Acting through CMS, the federal government influences greatly the US health care system. CMS is an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services that administers the Medicare program and partners with state governments to administer the Health Insurance Exchanges, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance programs (CHIP).¹ In addition, CMS is responsible for enforcing quality care standards in long-term care facilities and clinical laboratories and the implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.¹

In January, CMS plans the following major changes to coding and documentation^2,3:

1. Selection of the level of E/M service will no longer require documentation of bullet points in the history, physical exam, and MDM. The simplified system allows physicians and qualified health care professionals to code either by total time (both face-to-face and non–face-to-face) on the date of the encounter or by level of MDM.
2. For established office patients, 5 levels of office-based evaluation and management services will be retained. CMS had initially proposed to reduce the number of office-based E/M codes from 5 to 3, combining code levels 2, 3, and 4 into 1 code.⁴ However, after receiving feedback from professional societies and the public, CMS abandoned the plan for radical simplification of coding levels.^2,3 Implementation of their proposal would have resulted in the same payment for treatment of a hang nail as for a complex gyn patient with multiple medical problems. Both patient advocacy groups and professional societies argued that incentives originally were misaligned.
3. For new office patients, since both 99201 and 99202 require straightforward MDM, the level 1 code (99201) has been eliminated, reducing the number of code levels from 5 to 4.
4. History and physical exam will no longer be used to determine code level for office E/M codes. These elements will be required only as medically appropriate. This means that documentation review will no longer focus on “bean counting” the elements in the history and physical exam.
5. Following a reassessment of the actual time required to provide E/M services in real-life practice, CMS plans to markedly increase the relative value of office visits for established patients and modestly increase the relative value of office visits for new patients. CMS operates under the principle of “neutral budgeting,” meaning that an increase of the relative value of E/M codes will result in a decrease in the payment for procedural codes. The actual RVUs for procedural services do not change; however, budget neutrality requires a decrease in the dollar conversion factor. The proposed changes will increase the payment for E/M services and decrease payments for procedural services.

Continue to: Refocusing practice on MDM complexity...

Refocusing practice on MDM complexity

The practice of medicine is a calling with great rewards. Prominent among those rewards are improving the health of women, children, and the community, developing deep and trusting relationships with patients, families, and clinical colleagues. The practice of medicine is also replete with a host of punishing administrative burdens, including prior authorizations, clunky electronic medical records, poorly designed quality metrics that are applied to clinicians, and billing compliance rules that emphasize the repetitive documentation of clinical information with minimal value.

Some of the most irritating aspects of medical practice are the CMS rules governing medical record documentation required for billing ambulatory office visits. Current coding compliance focuses on counting the number of systems reviewed in the review of systems; the documentation of past history, social history, and family history; the number of organs and organ elements examined during the physical examination; and the complexity of MDM.

In January 2021, CMS plans to adopt new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code descriptors for the office and other outpatient E/M services that sunset most of the “bean-counting” metrics and emphasize the importance of the complexity of MDM in guiding selection of a correct code.² Beginning in January 2021, clinicians will have the option of selecting an E/M code level based on the total amount of time required to provide the office visit service or the complexity of MDM. When selecting a code level based on MDM the new guidance emphasizes the importance of reviewing notes from other clinicians, reviewing test results, ordering of tests, and discussing and coordinating the care of the patient with other treating physicians. These changes reflect a better understanding of what is most important in good medical practice, promoting better patient care. TABLES 1 and 2 provide the initial guidance from CMS concerning selection of E/M code level based on time and MDM, respectively.² The guidance for using MDM to select an E/M code level is likely to evolve following implementation, so stay tuned. When using MDM to select a code, 2 of the 3 general categories are required to select that level of service.

Increase in the valuation of office-based E/M services

The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule uses a resource-based relative value system to determine time and intensity of the work of clinical practice. This system recognizes 3 major factors that influence the resources required to provide a service:

• work of the clinician
• practice expense for technical components
• cost of professional liability insurance.

Many primary care professional associations have long contended that CMS has undervalued office-based E/M services relative to procedures, resulting in the devaluing of primary care practice. After the CPT code descriptors were updated by the CPT editorial panel, 52 specialty societies surveyed their members to provide inputs to CMS on the time and intensity of the office and other outpatient E/M codes as currently practiced. The American Medical Association’s Specialty Society Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) reviewed the surveys and provided new inputs via open comment to CMS. CMS has responded to this feedback with a review of the intensity of clinical work required to provide an ambulatory visit service. In response to the review, CMS proposes to accept the recommendations of the RUC representing the house of medicine and increase the work and practice expense relative value assigned to new and established office visit codes. Overall, the combination of changes in relative values assigned for the work of the clinician and the expense of practice, increases the total value of office-based E/M codes for new patients by 7% to 14% and for established patients from 28% to 46% (see supplemental table in the sidebar at the end of this article).

Continue to: Decreased payments for procedural services...

Decreased payments for procedural services

Medicare is required to offset increased payment in one arena of health care delivery with decreased payment in other arenas of care, thereby achieving “budget-neutrality.” As detailed above, CMS plans to increase Medicare payments for office-based E/M services. Payment for services is calculated by multiplying the total RVUs for a particular service by a “conversion factor” (ie, number of dollars per RVU). To achieve budget-neutrality, CMS has proposed substantially reducing the conversion factor for 2021 (from $36.09 to $32.26), which will effectively decrease Medicare payments for procedural services since their RVUs have not changed. While the AMA RUC and many specialty societies continue to strongly advocate for the E/M work RVU increases to be included in the E/M components of 10- and 90-day global services, CMS has proposed to implement them only for “stand alone” E/M services.

Organizations are lobbying to delay or prevent the planned decrease in conversion factor, which results in substantial declines in payment for procedural services. (See "What do the Medicare billing changes mean for the Obstetrical Bundled services?" at the end of this article.) Due to the economic and clinical practice challenges caused by the corona­virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic it would be best if CMS did not reduce payments to physicians who are experts in procedural health care, thereby avoiding the risk of reduced access to these vital services.

If the current CMS changes in payment are implemented, endocrinologists, rheumatologists, and family physicians will have an increase in payment, and radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons will have a decrease in payment (TABLE 3).⁶ Obstetrics and gynecology is projected to have an 8% increase in Medicare payment. However, if an obstetrician-gynecologist derives most of their Medicare payments from surgical procedures, they are likely to have a decrease in payment from Medicare. Other payers will be incorporating the new coding structure for 2021; however, their payment structures and conversion factors are likely to vary. It is important to note that the RVUs for procedures have not changed. The budget neutrality adjustment resulted in a much lower conversion factor and therefore a decrease in payment for those specialties whose RVUs did not increase.

Bottom line

Working through the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs, CMS can influence greatly the practice of medicine including medical record documentation practices and payment rates for every clinical service. CMS proposes to end the onerous “bean counting” approach to billing compliance and refocus on the complexity of MDM as the foundation for selecting a billing code level. This change is long overdue, valuing the effective management of complex patients in office practice. Hopefully, CMS will reverse the planned reduction in the payment for procedural services, preserving patient access to important health care services. ●

What do the Medicare billing changes mean for the Obstetrical Bundled services?

---

The CY 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule was published electronically in the Federal Register on November 1, 2019. This final rule aligns the evaluation and management (E/M) coding and payment with changes recommended by the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Editorial Panel and American Medical Association’s (AMA) Specialty Society Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) for office/outpatient E/M visits. Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) did not agree with the RUC, AMA, and specialty societies that the E/M payment changes should be applicable across all global services that incorporate E/M visits—despite the fact that the values proposed by the RUC incorporated survey data from 52 specialties, representing most of medicine (including those specialties that predominantly perform procedures). Specifically, CMS expressed the view that the number of E/M visits within the 10- and 90-day global codes, as well as the maternity care bundle, were difficult to validate; therefore, the increased values would not be distributed to those procedural services.

Many professional societies expressed significant concerns about the resulting budget neutrality adjustments that would occur effective January 2021. The great news for ObGyns is that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was able to respond directly to CMS’s concerns with data to support the number of prenatal visits within the Obstetrical Bundle. Tapping into a de-identified, cloud-based data set of prenatal records—representing more than 1,100 obstetric providers with close to 30,000 recently completed pregnancies—ACOG was able to document both a mean and median number of prenatal visits across a broad geographic, payer, and patient demographic that supported the 13 prenatal visits in the Obstetrical Bundle.

With ACOG’s advocacy and ability to provide data to CMS, the proposed physician fee schedule rule for 2021 has proposed to incorporate the E/M increased reimbursement into the prenatal care codes. Now we urge the CMS to finalize this proposal. Although Medicare pays for a tiny number of pregnancies annually, we hope that all payers, including Medicaid and managed care plans, will agree with this acknowledgement of the increased work of evaluation and management that obstetricians provide during prenatal care. Join ACOG in telling CMS to finalize their proposal to increase the values of the global obstetric codes: https://acog.quorum.us/campaign/28579/.

Mifepristone is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated medication for managing miscarriage and for medical abortion when combined with misoprostol.^1,2 Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved its use in 2000, more than 4 million women have used this medication.³ The combination of mifepristone with misoprostol was used for 39% of all US abortions in 2017.⁴ Approximately 10% of all clinically recognized pregnancies end in miscarriages, and many are safely managed with either misoprostol alone or with the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.⁵
 

The issue

The prescription and distribution of mifepristone is highly regulated by the FDA via requirements outlined in the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) drug safety program. The FDA may determine a REMS is necessary for a specific drug to ensure the benefits of a drug outweigh the potential risks. A REMS may include an informative package insert for patients, follow-up communication to prescribers—including letters, safety protocols or recommended laboratory tests, or Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU). ETASU are types of REMS that are placed on medications that have significant potential for serious adverse effects, and without such restrictions FDA approval would be rescinded.

Are mifepristone requirements fairly applied?

The 3 ETASU restrictions on the distribution of mifepristone are in-person dispensation, prescriber certification, and patient signatures on special forms.⁶ The in-person dispensing requirement is applied to only 16 other medications (one of which is Mifeprex, the brand version of mifepristone), and Mifeprex/mifepristone are the only ones deemed safe for self-administration—meaning that patients receive the drug from a clinic but then may take it at a site of their choosing. The prescriber certification requirement places expectations on providers to account for distribution of doses and keep records of serial numbers (in effect, having clinicians act as both physician and pharmacist, as most medications are distributed and recorded in pharmacies). The patient form was recommended for elimination in 2016 due to its duplicative information and burden on patients—a recommendation that was then overruled by the FDA commissioner.⁷

These 3 requirements placed on mifepristone specifically target dosages for use related to abortions and miscarriages. Mifepristone is used to treat other medical conditions, with much higher doses, without the same restrictions—in fact, the FDA has allowed much higher doses of mifepristone to be mailed directly to a patient when prescribed for different disorders. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has long opposed the burdensome REMS requirements on mifepristone for reproductive health indications.⁸

Arguments regarding the safety of mifepristone must be understood in the context of how the medication is taken, and the unique difference with other medications that must be administered by physicians or in health care facilities. Mifepristone is self-administered, and the desired effect—evacuation of uterine contents—typically occurs after a patient takes the accompanying medication misoprostol, which is some 24 to 72 hours later. This timeframe makes it highly unlikely that any patient would be in the presence of their provider at the time of medication effect, thus an in-person dispensing requirement has no medical bearing on the outcome of the health of the patient. 

REMS changes during the COVID-19 pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessarily changed the structure of REMS and ETASU requirements for many medications, with changes made in order to mitigate viral transmission through the limitation of unnecessary visits to clinics or hospitals. The FDA announced in March of 2020 that it would not enforce pre-prescription requirements, such as laboratory or magnetic resonance imaging results, for many medications (including those more toxic than mifepristone), and that it would lift the requirement for in-person dispensation of several medications.⁹ Also in March 2020 the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) activated a “telemedicine exception” to allow physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids.¹⁰

Despite repeated pleas from organizations, individuals, and physician groups, the FDA continued to enforce the REMS/ETASU for mifepristone as the pandemic decimated communities. Importantly, the pandemic has not had an equal effect on all communities, and the disparities highlighted in outcomes as related to COVID-19 are also reflected in disparities to access to reproductive choices.¹¹ By enforcing REMS/ETASU for mifepristone during a global pandemic, the FDA has placed additional burden on women and people who menstruate. As offices and clinics have closed, and as many jobs have evaporated, additional barriers have emerged, such as lack of childcare, fewer transportation options, and decreased clinic appointments. 

As the pandemic continues to affect communities in the United States, ACOG has issued guidance recommending assessment for eligibility for medical abortion remotely, and has encouraged the use of telemedicine and other remote interactions for its members and patients to limit transmission of the virus. 

The lawsuit

On May 27, 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (on behalf of ACOG, the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong, and Honor MacNaughton, MD) filed a civil action against the FDA and HHS challenging the requirement for in-person dispensing of mifepristone and associated ETASU requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs sought this injunction based on the claim that these restrictions during the pandemic infringe on the constitutional rights to patients’ privacy and liberty and to equal protection of the law as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the ACLU and other organizations said these unnecessary restrictions place patients, providers, and staff at unnecessary risk of viral exposure amidst a global pandemic.

The verdict

On July 13, 2020, a federal court granted the preliminary injunction to suspend FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements of mifepristone for abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court denied the motion for suspension of in-person restrictions as applied to miscarriage management. The preliminary injunction applies nationwide without geographic limitation. It will remain in effect until the end of the litigation or for 30 days following the expiration of the public health emergency.

What the outcome means

This injunction is a step in the right direction for patients and providers to allow for autonomy and clinical practice guided by clinician expertise. However, this ruling remains narrow. Patients must be counseled about mifepristone via telemedicine and sign a Patient Agreement Form, which must be returned electronically or by mail.  Patients must receive a copy of the mifepristone medication guide, and dispensing of mifepristone must still be conducted by or under the supervision of a certified provider. The medication may not be dispensed by retail pharmacies, thus requiring providers to arrange for mailing of prescriptions to patients. Given state-based legal statutes regarding mailing of medications, this injunction may not lead to an immediate increase in access to care. In addition, patients seeking management for miscarriage must go to clinic to have mifepristone dispensed and thus risk exposure to viral transmission. 

What now?

The regulation of mifepristone—in spite of excellent safety and specifically for the narrow purpose of administration in the setting of abortion and miscarriage care—is by definition a discriminatory practice against patients and providers. As clinicians, we are duty-bound to speak out against injustices to our practices and our patients. At a local level, we can work to implement safe practices in the setting of this injunction and continue to work on a national level to ensure this injunction becomes permanent and with more broad scope to eliminate all of the REMS requirements for mifepristone.

ACTION ITEMS

• Act locally! Are you an abortion provider? Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe after this injunction. 
• Act statewide! Press candidates in your state to stand up for science and data. Support legislative acts and bills that address combating discriminatory regulations.
• Act nationally! The President is responsible for appointing the Commissioner of the FDA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (with Senate advice and consent). Who we elect matters. Seek out opportunities to become involved in increasing access to and awareness of voter registration and Election Day, and speak out against voter suppression. Make sure you are registered to vote here and check your area to review new recommendations amidst the pandemic.

Mifepristone is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated medication for managing miscarriage and for medical abortion when combined with misoprostol.^1,2 Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved its use in 2000, more than 4 million women have used this medication.³ The combination of mifepristone with misoprostol was used for 39% of all US abortions in 2017.⁴ Approximately 10% of all clinically recognized pregnancies end in miscarriages, and many are safely managed with either misoprostol alone or with the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.⁵
 

The issue

The prescription and distribution of mifepristone is highly regulated by the FDA via requirements outlined in the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) drug safety program. The FDA may determine a REMS is necessary for a specific drug to ensure the benefits of a drug outweigh the potential risks. A REMS may include an informative package insert for patients, follow-up communication to prescribers—including letters, safety protocols or recommended laboratory tests, or Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU). ETASU are types of REMS that are placed on medications that have significant potential for serious adverse effects, and without such restrictions FDA approval would be rescinded.

Are mifepristone requirements fairly applied?

The 3 ETASU restrictions on the distribution of mifepristone are in-person dispensation, prescriber certification, and patient signatures on special forms.⁶ The in-person dispensing requirement is applied to only 16 other medications (one of which is Mifeprex, the brand version of mifepristone), and Mifeprex/mifepristone are the only ones deemed safe for self-administration—meaning that patients receive the drug from a clinic but then may take it at a site of their choosing. The prescriber certification requirement places expectations on providers to account for distribution of doses and keep records of serial numbers (in effect, having clinicians act as both physician and pharmacist, as most medications are distributed and recorded in pharmacies). The patient form was recommended for elimination in 2016 due to its duplicative information and burden on patients—a recommendation that was then overruled by the FDA commissioner.⁷

These 3 requirements placed on mifepristone specifically target dosages for use related to abortions and miscarriages. Mifepristone is used to treat other medical conditions, with much higher doses, without the same restrictions—in fact, the FDA has allowed much higher doses of mifepristone to be mailed directly to a patient when prescribed for different disorders. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has long opposed the burdensome REMS requirements on mifepristone for reproductive health indications.⁸

Arguments regarding the safety of mifepristone must be understood in the context of how the medication is taken, and the unique difference with other medications that must be administered by physicians or in health care facilities. Mifepristone is self-administered, and the desired effect—evacuation of uterine contents—typically occurs after a patient takes the accompanying medication misoprostol, which is some 24 to 72 hours later. This timeframe makes it highly unlikely that any patient would be in the presence of their provider at the time of medication effect, thus an in-person dispensing requirement has no medical bearing on the outcome of the health of the patient. 

REMS changes during the COVID-19 pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessarily changed the structure of REMS and ETASU requirements for many medications, with changes made in order to mitigate viral transmission through the limitation of unnecessary visits to clinics or hospitals. The FDA announced in March of 2020 that it would not enforce pre-prescription requirements, such as laboratory or magnetic resonance imaging results, for many medications (including those more toxic than mifepristone), and that it would lift the requirement for in-person dispensation of several medications.⁹ Also in March 2020 the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) activated a “telemedicine exception” to allow physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids.¹⁰

Despite repeated pleas from organizations, individuals, and physician groups, the FDA continued to enforce the REMS/ETASU for mifepristone as the pandemic decimated communities. Importantly, the pandemic has not had an equal effect on all communities, and the disparities highlighted in outcomes as related to COVID-19 are also reflected in disparities to access to reproductive choices.¹¹ By enforcing REMS/ETASU for mifepristone during a global pandemic, the FDA has placed additional burden on women and people who menstruate. As offices and clinics have closed, and as many jobs have evaporated, additional barriers have emerged, such as lack of childcare, fewer transportation options, and decreased clinic appointments. 

As the pandemic continues to affect communities in the United States, ACOG has issued guidance recommending assessment for eligibility for medical abortion remotely, and has encouraged the use of telemedicine and other remote interactions for its members and patients to limit transmission of the virus. 

The lawsuit

On May 27, 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (on behalf of ACOG, the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong, and Honor MacNaughton, MD) filed a civil action against the FDA and HHS challenging the requirement for in-person dispensing of mifepristone and associated ETASU requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs sought this injunction based on the claim that these restrictions during the pandemic infringe on the constitutional rights to patients’ privacy and liberty and to equal protection of the law as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the ACLU and other organizations said these unnecessary restrictions place patients, providers, and staff at unnecessary risk of viral exposure amidst a global pandemic.

The verdict

On July 13, 2020, a federal court granted the preliminary injunction to suspend FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements of mifepristone for abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court denied the motion for suspension of in-person restrictions as applied to miscarriage management. The preliminary injunction applies nationwide without geographic limitation. It will remain in effect until the end of the litigation or for 30 days following the expiration of the public health emergency.

What the outcome means

This injunction is a step in the right direction for patients and providers to allow for autonomy and clinical practice guided by clinician expertise. However, this ruling remains narrow. Patients must be counseled about mifepristone via telemedicine and sign a Patient Agreement Form, which must be returned electronically or by mail.  Patients must receive a copy of the mifepristone medication guide, and dispensing of mifepristone must still be conducted by or under the supervision of a certified provider. The medication may not be dispensed by retail pharmacies, thus requiring providers to arrange for mailing of prescriptions to patients. Given state-based legal statutes regarding mailing of medications, this injunction may not lead to an immediate increase in access to care. In addition, patients seeking management for miscarriage must go to clinic to have mifepristone dispensed and thus risk exposure to viral transmission. 

What now?

The regulation of mifepristone—in spite of excellent safety and specifically for the narrow purpose of administration in the setting of abortion and miscarriage care—is by definition a discriminatory practice against patients and providers. As clinicians, we are duty-bound to speak out against injustices to our practices and our patients. At a local level, we can work to implement safe practices in the setting of this injunction and continue to work on a national level to ensure this injunction becomes permanent and with more broad scope to eliminate all of the REMS requirements for mifepristone.

ACTION ITEMS

• Act locally! Are you an abortion provider? Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe after this injunction. 
• Act statewide! Press candidates in your state to stand up for science and data. Support legislative acts and bills that address combating discriminatory regulations.
• Act nationally! The President is responsible for appointing the Commissioner of the FDA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (with Senate advice and consent). Who we elect matters. Seek out opportunities to become involved in increasing access to and awareness of voter registration and Election Day, and speak out against voter suppression. Make sure you are registered to vote here and check your area to review new recommendations amidst the pandemic.

Mifepristone is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated medication for managing miscarriage and for medical abortion when combined with misoprostol.^1,2 Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved its use in 2000, more than 4 million women have used this medication.³ The combination of mifepristone with misoprostol was used for 39% of all US abortions in 2017.⁴ Approximately 10% of all clinically recognized pregnancies end in miscarriages, and many are safely managed with either misoprostol alone or with the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.⁵
 

The issue

The prescription and distribution of mifepristone is highly regulated by the FDA via requirements outlined in the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) drug safety program. The FDA may determine a REMS is necessary for a specific drug to ensure the benefits of a drug outweigh the potential risks. A REMS may include an informative package insert for patients, follow-up communication to prescribers—including letters, safety protocols or recommended laboratory tests, or Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU). ETASU are types of REMS that are placed on medications that have significant potential for serious adverse effects, and without such restrictions FDA approval would be rescinded.

Are mifepristone requirements fairly applied?

The 3 ETASU restrictions on the distribution of mifepristone are in-person dispensation, prescriber certification, and patient signatures on special forms.⁶ The in-person dispensing requirement is applied to only 16 other medications (one of which is Mifeprex, the brand version of mifepristone), and Mifeprex/mifepristone are the only ones deemed safe for self-administration—meaning that patients receive the drug from a clinic but then may take it at a site of their choosing. The prescriber certification requirement places expectations on providers to account for distribution of doses and keep records of serial numbers (in effect, having clinicians act as both physician and pharmacist, as most medications are distributed and recorded in pharmacies). The patient form was recommended for elimination in 2016 due to its duplicative information and burden on patients—a recommendation that was then overruled by the FDA commissioner.⁷

These 3 requirements placed on mifepristone specifically target dosages for use related to abortions and miscarriages. Mifepristone is used to treat other medical conditions, with much higher doses, without the same restrictions—in fact, the FDA has allowed much higher doses of mifepristone to be mailed directly to a patient when prescribed for different disorders. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has long opposed the burdensome REMS requirements on mifepristone for reproductive health indications.⁸

Arguments regarding the safety of mifepristone must be understood in the context of how the medication is taken, and the unique difference with other medications that must be administered by physicians or in health care facilities. Mifepristone is self-administered, and the desired effect—evacuation of uterine contents—typically occurs after a patient takes the accompanying medication misoprostol, which is some 24 to 72 hours later. This timeframe makes it highly unlikely that any patient would be in the presence of their provider at the time of medication effect, thus an in-person dispensing requirement has no medical bearing on the outcome of the health of the patient. 

REMS changes during the COVID-19 pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessarily changed the structure of REMS and ETASU requirements for many medications, with changes made in order to mitigate viral transmission through the limitation of unnecessary visits to clinics or hospitals. The FDA announced in March of 2020 that it would not enforce pre-prescription requirements, such as laboratory or magnetic resonance imaging results, for many medications (including those more toxic than mifepristone), and that it would lift the requirement for in-person dispensation of several medications.⁹ Also in March 2020 the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) activated a “telemedicine exception” to allow physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids.¹⁰

Despite repeated pleas from organizations, individuals, and physician groups, the FDA continued to enforce the REMS/ETASU for mifepristone as the pandemic decimated communities. Importantly, the pandemic has not had an equal effect on all communities, and the disparities highlighted in outcomes as related to COVID-19 are also reflected in disparities to access to reproductive choices.¹¹ By enforcing REMS/ETASU for mifepristone during a global pandemic, the FDA has placed additional burden on women and people who menstruate. As offices and clinics have closed, and as many jobs have evaporated, additional barriers have emerged, such as lack of childcare, fewer transportation options, and decreased clinic appointments. 

As the pandemic continues to affect communities in the United States, ACOG has issued guidance recommending assessment for eligibility for medical abortion remotely, and has encouraged the use of telemedicine and other remote interactions for its members and patients to limit transmission of the virus. 

The lawsuit

On May 27, 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (on behalf of ACOG, the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong, and Honor MacNaughton, MD) filed a civil action against the FDA and HHS challenging the requirement for in-person dispensing of mifepristone and associated ETASU requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs sought this injunction based on the claim that these restrictions during the pandemic infringe on the constitutional rights to patients’ privacy and liberty and to equal protection of the law as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the ACLU and other organizations said these unnecessary restrictions place patients, providers, and staff at unnecessary risk of viral exposure amidst a global pandemic.

The verdict

On July 13, 2020, a federal court granted the preliminary injunction to suspend FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements of mifepristone for abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court denied the motion for suspension of in-person restrictions as applied to miscarriage management. The preliminary injunction applies nationwide without geographic limitation. It will remain in effect until the end of the litigation or for 30 days following the expiration of the public health emergency.

What the outcome means

This injunction is a step in the right direction for patients and providers to allow for autonomy and clinical practice guided by clinician expertise. However, this ruling remains narrow. Patients must be counseled about mifepristone via telemedicine and sign a Patient Agreement Form, which must be returned electronically or by mail.  Patients must receive a copy of the mifepristone medication guide, and dispensing of mifepristone must still be conducted by or under the supervision of a certified provider. The medication may not be dispensed by retail pharmacies, thus requiring providers to arrange for mailing of prescriptions to patients. Given state-based legal statutes regarding mailing of medications, this injunction may not lead to an immediate increase in access to care. In addition, patients seeking management for miscarriage must go to clinic to have mifepristone dispensed and thus risk exposure to viral transmission. 

What now?

The regulation of mifepristone—in spite of excellent safety and specifically for the narrow purpose of administration in the setting of abortion and miscarriage care—is by definition a discriminatory practice against patients and providers. As clinicians, we are duty-bound to speak out against injustices to our practices and our patients. At a local level, we can work to implement safe practices in the setting of this injunction and continue to work on a national level to ensure this injunction becomes permanent and with more broad scope to eliminate all of the REMS requirements for mifepristone.

ACTION ITEMS

• Act locally! Are you an abortion provider? Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe after this injunction. 
• Act statewide! Press candidates in your state to stand up for science and data. Support legislative acts and bills that address combating discriminatory regulations.
• Act nationally! The President is responsible for appointing the Commissioner of the FDA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (with Senate advice and consent). Who we elect matters. Seek out opportunities to become involved in increasing access to and awareness of voter registration and Election Day, and speak out against voter suppression. Make sure you are registered to vote here and check your area to review new recommendations amidst the pandemic.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The US Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 28 expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of remdesivir (Veklury) to include treatment of all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease.

An EUA of remdesivir issued in May allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who need oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

“Today, based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the FDA has determined that it is reasonable to believe Veklury may be effective for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients,” the FDA news release about the expanded EUA said. “The Agency’s review has also concluded that the known and potential benefits of Veklury outweigh the known and potential risks for these uses.”
 

‘Further evaluation’ needed

The EUA expansion is partially based on the results of a randomized, open-label trial that Gilead Sciences, remdesivir’s manufacturer, conducted at multiple sites.

The trial showed that a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID-19 in comparison with those receiving standard care. However, patients who were randomly assigned to a receive longer, 10-day remdesivir course had not improved significantly 11 days after treatment started, compared with those who received standard care.

Results with remdesivir in this trial and in two previously reported randomized trials varied, “raising the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices, including patient populations, or whether the drug is less efficacious than hoped,” wrote Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in an editorial that accompanied publication of the trials in JAMA.

Angus previously expressed concern that expanding remdesivir’s EUA could “interrupt or thwart efforts to execute the needed RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

“We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large-scale RCTs adequately powered to understand in which patients, at which dose, given at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise, but given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how best to use it,” Angus said.

The EUA expansion is also partially based on results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases conducted. In that trial, there was a statistically significant reduction in median recovery time and higher odds of clinical improvement after 2 weeks for hospitalized patients who received remdesivir.

For hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results were consistent with the overall study results but were not statistically significant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 28 expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of remdesivir (Veklury) to include treatment of all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease.

An EUA of remdesivir issued in May allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who need oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

“Today, based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the FDA has determined that it is reasonable to believe Veklury may be effective for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients,” the FDA news release about the expanded EUA said. “The Agency’s review has also concluded that the known and potential benefits of Veklury outweigh the known and potential risks for these uses.”
 

‘Further evaluation’ needed

The EUA expansion is partially based on the results of a randomized, open-label trial that Gilead Sciences, remdesivir’s manufacturer, conducted at multiple sites.

The trial showed that a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID-19 in comparison with those receiving standard care. However, patients who were randomly assigned to a receive longer, 10-day remdesivir course had not improved significantly 11 days after treatment started, compared with those who received standard care.

Results with remdesivir in this trial and in two previously reported randomized trials varied, “raising the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices, including patient populations, or whether the drug is less efficacious than hoped,” wrote Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in an editorial that accompanied publication of the trials in JAMA.

Angus previously expressed concern that expanding remdesivir’s EUA could “interrupt or thwart efforts to execute the needed RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

“We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large-scale RCTs adequately powered to understand in which patients, at which dose, given at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise, but given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how best to use it,” Angus said.

The EUA expansion is also partially based on results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases conducted. In that trial, there was a statistically significant reduction in median recovery time and higher odds of clinical improvement after 2 weeks for hospitalized patients who received remdesivir.

For hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results were consistent with the overall study results but were not statistically significant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 28 expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of remdesivir (Veklury) to include treatment of all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease.

An EUA of remdesivir issued in May allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who need oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

“Today, based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the FDA has determined that it is reasonable to believe Veklury may be effective for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients,” the FDA news release about the expanded EUA said. “The Agency’s review has also concluded that the known and potential benefits of Veklury outweigh the known and potential risks for these uses.”
 

‘Further evaluation’ needed

The EUA expansion is partially based on the results of a randomized, open-label trial that Gilead Sciences, remdesivir’s manufacturer, conducted at multiple sites.

The trial showed that a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID-19 in comparison with those receiving standard care. However, patients who were randomly assigned to a receive longer, 10-day remdesivir course had not improved significantly 11 days after treatment started, compared with those who received standard care.

Results with remdesivir in this trial and in two previously reported randomized trials varied, “raising the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices, including patient populations, or whether the drug is less efficacious than hoped,” wrote Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in an editorial that accompanied publication of the trials in JAMA.

Angus previously expressed concern that expanding remdesivir’s EUA could “interrupt or thwart efforts to execute the needed RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

“We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large-scale RCTs adequately powered to understand in which patients, at which dose, given at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise, but given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how best to use it,” Angus said.

The EUA expansion is also partially based on results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases conducted. In that trial, there was a statistically significant reduction in median recovery time and higher odds of clinical improvement after 2 weeks for hospitalized patients who received remdesivir.

For hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results were consistent with the overall study results but were not statistically significant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has removed two senior public relations employees, one of whom advised the agency against unbridled promotion of convalescent blood plasma as a treatment for people with COVID-19, multiple media outlets reported Aug. 28.

Officials claim the dismissals are coincidental and are not related to a controversy about whether claims regarding convalescent plasma therapy that were put forth by President Donald Trump and FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, were exaggerated, according to reports from The New York Times , CNN, and elsewhere.

One of the PR employees, Emily Miller, was on the job less than 2 weeks. The White House named her FDA chief spokeswoman 11 days ago, but Hahn removed her from that post Aug. 28.

On Aug. 27, the US Department of Health and Human Services terminated the contract for Wayne L. Pines, a PR consultant to the FDA. Pines reportedly advised Hahn to apologize for making misleading claims about the therapeutic benefits of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

The FDA did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The controversy stems from comments Hahn made about the announcement of the emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma for patients with COVID-19. He said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 people who were treated. That statement was later found to be erroneous because he presented a relative risk reduction as an absolute decrease in risk. He later apologized via Twitter.

Researchers running clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 are concerned that the emergency use authorization could thwart efforts to recruit participants for their studies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has removed two senior public relations employees, one of whom advised the agency against unbridled promotion of convalescent blood plasma as a treatment for people with COVID-19, multiple media outlets reported Aug. 28.

Officials claim the dismissals are coincidental and are not related to a controversy about whether claims regarding convalescent plasma therapy that were put forth by President Donald Trump and FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, were exaggerated, according to reports from The New York Times , CNN, and elsewhere.

One of the PR employees, Emily Miller, was on the job less than 2 weeks. The White House named her FDA chief spokeswoman 11 days ago, but Hahn removed her from that post Aug. 28.

On Aug. 27, the US Department of Health and Human Services terminated the contract for Wayne L. Pines, a PR consultant to the FDA. Pines reportedly advised Hahn to apologize for making misleading claims about the therapeutic benefits of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

The FDA did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The controversy stems from comments Hahn made about the announcement of the emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma for patients with COVID-19. He said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 people who were treated. That statement was later found to be erroneous because he presented a relative risk reduction as an absolute decrease in risk. He later apologized via Twitter.

Researchers running clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 are concerned that the emergency use authorization could thwart efforts to recruit participants for their studies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has removed two senior public relations employees, one of whom advised the agency against unbridled promotion of convalescent blood plasma as a treatment for people with COVID-19, multiple media outlets reported Aug. 28.

Officials claim the dismissals are coincidental and are not related to a controversy about whether claims regarding convalescent plasma therapy that were put forth by President Donald Trump and FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, were exaggerated, according to reports from The New York Times , CNN, and elsewhere.

One of the PR employees, Emily Miller, was on the job less than 2 weeks. The White House named her FDA chief spokeswoman 11 days ago, but Hahn removed her from that post Aug. 28.

On Aug. 27, the US Department of Health and Human Services terminated the contract for Wayne L. Pines, a PR consultant to the FDA. Pines reportedly advised Hahn to apologize for making misleading claims about the therapeutic benefits of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

The FDA did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The controversy stems from comments Hahn made about the announcement of the emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma for patients with COVID-19. He said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 people who were treated. That statement was later found to be erroneous because he presented a relative risk reduction as an absolute decrease in risk. He later apologized via Twitter.

Researchers running clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 are concerned that the emergency use authorization could thwart efforts to recruit participants for their studies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A torrent of blame has deluged the administration’s management of the pandemic. There is though one part of the government that deserves the praise of the nation for its response to this public health crisis—the federal health care system. In this column, we discuss the ways in which the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps especially have bravely and generously responded to the medical emergency of COVID-19 in the US.

Four missions drive the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Though the fourth of these missions usually is in the background, it has risen to the forefront during the pandemic. To put the fourth mission in its proper perspective, we first should review the other 3 charges given to the largest integrated health care system in the country.

The first mission is to provide the highest quality care possible for the more than 9 million veterans enrolled in that system at each of the 1,255 VHA locations. The second mission is to ensure that the Veterans Benefits Administration delivers the full range of benefits that veterans earned through their service. These including funding for education, loans for homes, and many other types of support that assist service men and women to be successful in their transition from military to civilian life. The third mission is to honor the commitment of those who fought for their country unto death. The National Cemeteries Administration oversees 142 national cemeteries where veterans are buried with dignity and remembered with gratitude for their uniformed service. The purpose of these 3 internally focused missions is to provide a safety net for eligible veterans from the day they separate from the military until the hour they pass from this earth.

The fourth mission is different. This mission looks outside the military family to the civilian world. Its goal is to bolster the ability of the nation as a whole to handle wars, terrorism, national emergencies, and natural disasters. It does this through emergency response plans that preserve the integrity of the 3 other missions to veterans while enhancing the capacity of local and state governments to manage the threat of these public health, safety, or security crises.¹

At the same time the VA was aggressively mounting a defense against the threat COVID-19 posed to the other missions, it also launched the fourth mission. In announcing these actions in April 2020, VA Secretary Robert Wilke succinctly summarized the need to balance the fourth mission with the other 3. “VA is committed to helping the nation in this effort to combat COVID-19. Helping veterans is our first mission, but in many locations across the country we’re helping states and local communities. VA is in this fight not only for the millions of veterans we serve each day; we’re in the fight for the people of the United States.”²

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic I saw firsthand how VA disaster preparedness and emergency training were far superior to many academic and community health care systems. Given VA’s detailed and drilled crisis response plans, its specialized expertise in public health disasters, and its immense resources, it is no wonder that as the virus stretched civilian health care systems, some states turned to the VA for help. At my Albuquerque, New Mexico, VA medical center, 5 medical surgical beds and 3 intensive care beds were opened to the Indian Health Service overwhelmed with cases of COVID-19 in the hard-hit Navajo Nation. In New Jersey where Federal Practitioner is published, the fourth mission reached out to the state-run veterans homes as 90 VA nurses and gerontologists were deployed to 2 of its veterans facilities where close to 150 veterans have died.³ State veterans homes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and many other states have received supplies, including direly needed testing and personal protective equipment, staff, technology, and training.⁴

In July, VA published an impressive summary of fourth mission activities, which I encourage you to read. When you are look at this site, remember with a moment of silent appreciation all the altruistic and courageous VA clinical and administrative staff who volunteered for these assignments many of which put them directly in harm’s way.⁵

The VA is not alone in answering the call of COVID-19. In March, despite the grave risk to their health, their life, and their families, the USNS Comfort was deployed to New York City to help with its COVID-19 response while the USNS Mercy assisted in the efforts in Los Angeles. More recently, the military deployed > 700 Military Health System medical and support professionals to support COVID-19 operations in both Texas and California. Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio has taken on a handful of civilian patients with COVID-19 and increase its level I trauma cases as local hospitals have strained under the caseload.⁶

For the PHS Commissioned Corps its first mission is to serve as “America’s health responders.”⁷ This pandemic has intensified the extant health inequities in our country and compounded them with racial injustice and economic disparity. Thus, it is important to recognize that the very purpose of the PHS is to “fight disease, conduct research, and care for patients in underserved communities across the nation.”⁸ More than 3,900 PHS officers have been deployed nationally and internationally in COVID-19 clinical strike teams. Early in the pandemic the clinical response teams were deployed to a long-term care facility in Kirkland, Washington; convention center-based hospitals in New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Washington DC, and Navajo Nation facilities. PHS officers also are providing clinical guidance at Bureau of Prison facilities for infection control and personal protective equipment training.

We know that there are many more examples of heroic service by federal health care professionals and staff than we could locate or celebrate in this brief column. Readers of this journal are well aware of the near constant criticism of the VA and calls for privatization,⁹ the inadequate funding of the PHS,¹⁰ and the recent downsizing of DoD health care¹¹ that threatens to undermine its core functions. The pandemic has powerfully demonstrated that degrading the ability of federal health care to agilely and masterfully mobilize in the event of a public health disaster endangers not just veterans and the military but the health and well-being of a nation, particularly its most vulnerable citizens.

A torrent of blame has deluged the administration’s management of the pandemic. There is though one part of the government that deserves the praise of the nation for its response to this public health crisis—the federal health care system. In this column, we discuss the ways in which the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps especially have bravely and generously responded to the medical emergency of COVID-19 in the US.

Four missions drive the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Though the fourth of these missions usually is in the background, it has risen to the forefront during the pandemic. To put the fourth mission in its proper perspective, we first should review the other 3 charges given to the largest integrated health care system in the country.

The first mission is to provide the highest quality care possible for the more than 9 million veterans enrolled in that system at each of the 1,255 VHA locations. The second mission is to ensure that the Veterans Benefits Administration delivers the full range of benefits that veterans earned through their service. These including funding for education, loans for homes, and many other types of support that assist service men and women to be successful in their transition from military to civilian life. The third mission is to honor the commitment of those who fought for their country unto death. The National Cemeteries Administration oversees 142 national cemeteries where veterans are buried with dignity and remembered with gratitude for their uniformed service. The purpose of these 3 internally focused missions is to provide a safety net for eligible veterans from the day they separate from the military until the hour they pass from this earth.

The fourth mission is different. This mission looks outside the military family to the civilian world. Its goal is to bolster the ability of the nation as a whole to handle wars, terrorism, national emergencies, and natural disasters. It does this through emergency response plans that preserve the integrity of the 3 other missions to veterans while enhancing the capacity of local and state governments to manage the threat of these public health, safety, or security crises.¹

At the same time the VA was aggressively mounting a defense against the threat COVID-19 posed to the other missions, it also launched the fourth mission. In announcing these actions in April 2020, VA Secretary Robert Wilke succinctly summarized the need to balance the fourth mission with the other 3. “VA is committed to helping the nation in this effort to combat COVID-19. Helping veterans is our first mission, but in many locations across the country we’re helping states and local communities. VA is in this fight not only for the millions of veterans we serve each day; we’re in the fight for the people of the United States.”²

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic I saw firsthand how VA disaster preparedness and emergency training were far superior to many academic and community health care systems. Given VA’s detailed and drilled crisis response plans, its specialized expertise in public health disasters, and its immense resources, it is no wonder that as the virus stretched civilian health care systems, some states turned to the VA for help. At my Albuquerque, New Mexico, VA medical center, 5 medical surgical beds and 3 intensive care beds were opened to the Indian Health Service overwhelmed with cases of COVID-19 in the hard-hit Navajo Nation. In New Jersey where Federal Practitioner is published, the fourth mission reached out to the state-run veterans homes as 90 VA nurses and gerontologists were deployed to 2 of its veterans facilities where close to 150 veterans have died.³ State veterans homes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and many other states have received supplies, including direly needed testing and personal protective equipment, staff, technology, and training.⁴

In July, VA published an impressive summary of fourth mission activities, which I encourage you to read. When you are look at this site, remember with a moment of silent appreciation all the altruistic and courageous VA clinical and administrative staff who volunteered for these assignments many of which put them directly in harm’s way.⁵

The VA is not alone in answering the call of COVID-19. In March, despite the grave risk to their health, their life, and their families, the USNS Comfort was deployed to New York City to help with its COVID-19 response while the USNS Mercy assisted in the efforts in Los Angeles. More recently, the military deployed > 700 Military Health System medical and support professionals to support COVID-19 operations in both Texas and California. Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio has taken on a handful of civilian patients with COVID-19 and increase its level I trauma cases as local hospitals have strained under the caseload.⁶

For the PHS Commissioned Corps its first mission is to serve as “America’s health responders.”⁷ This pandemic has intensified the extant health inequities in our country and compounded them with racial injustice and economic disparity. Thus, it is important to recognize that the very purpose of the PHS is to “fight disease, conduct research, and care for patients in underserved communities across the nation.”⁸ More than 3,900 PHS officers have been deployed nationally and internationally in COVID-19 clinical strike teams. Early in the pandemic the clinical response teams were deployed to a long-term care facility in Kirkland, Washington; convention center-based hospitals in New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Washington DC, and Navajo Nation facilities. PHS officers also are providing clinical guidance at Bureau of Prison facilities for infection control and personal protective equipment training.

We know that there are many more examples of heroic service by federal health care professionals and staff than we could locate or celebrate in this brief column. Readers of this journal are well aware of the near constant criticism of the VA and calls for privatization,⁹ the inadequate funding of the PHS,¹⁰ and the recent downsizing of DoD health care¹¹ that threatens to undermine its core functions. The pandemic has powerfully demonstrated that degrading the ability of federal health care to agilely and masterfully mobilize in the event of a public health disaster endangers not just veterans and the military but the health and well-being of a nation, particularly its most vulnerable citizens.

A torrent of blame has deluged the administration’s management of the pandemic. There is though one part of the government that deserves the praise of the nation for its response to this public health crisis—the federal health care system. In this column, we discuss the ways in which the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps especially have bravely and generously responded to the medical emergency of COVID-19 in the US.

Four missions drive the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Though the fourth of these missions usually is in the background, it has risen to the forefront during the pandemic. To put the fourth mission in its proper perspective, we first should review the other 3 charges given to the largest integrated health care system in the country.

The first mission is to provide the highest quality care possible for the more than 9 million veterans enrolled in that system at each of the 1,255 VHA locations. The second mission is to ensure that the Veterans Benefits Administration delivers the full range of benefits that veterans earned through their service. These including funding for education, loans for homes, and many other types of support that assist service men and women to be successful in their transition from military to civilian life. The third mission is to honor the commitment of those who fought for their country unto death. The National Cemeteries Administration oversees 142 national cemeteries where veterans are buried with dignity and remembered with gratitude for their uniformed service. The purpose of these 3 internally focused missions is to provide a safety net for eligible veterans from the day they separate from the military until the hour they pass from this earth.

The fourth mission is different. This mission looks outside the military family to the civilian world. Its goal is to bolster the ability of the nation as a whole to handle wars, terrorism, national emergencies, and natural disasters. It does this through emergency response plans that preserve the integrity of the 3 other missions to veterans while enhancing the capacity of local and state governments to manage the threat of these public health, safety, or security crises.¹

At the same time the VA was aggressively mounting a defense against the threat COVID-19 posed to the other missions, it also launched the fourth mission. In announcing these actions in April 2020, VA Secretary Robert Wilke succinctly summarized the need to balance the fourth mission with the other 3. “VA is committed to helping the nation in this effort to combat COVID-19. Helping veterans is our first mission, but in many locations across the country we’re helping states and local communities. VA is in this fight not only for the millions of veterans we serve each day; we’re in the fight for the people of the United States.”²

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic I saw firsthand how VA disaster preparedness and emergency training were far superior to many academic and community health care systems. Given VA’s detailed and drilled crisis response plans, its specialized expertise in public health disasters, and its immense resources, it is no wonder that as the virus stretched civilian health care systems, some states turned to the VA for help. At my Albuquerque, New Mexico, VA medical center, 5 medical surgical beds and 3 intensive care beds were opened to the Indian Health Service overwhelmed with cases of COVID-19 in the hard-hit Navajo Nation. In New Jersey where Federal Practitioner is published, the fourth mission reached out to the state-run veterans homes as 90 VA nurses and gerontologists were deployed to 2 of its veterans facilities where close to 150 veterans have died.³ State veterans homes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and many other states have received supplies, including direly needed testing and personal protective equipment, staff, technology, and training.⁴

In July, VA published an impressive summary of fourth mission activities, which I encourage you to read. When you are look at this site, remember with a moment of silent appreciation all the altruistic and courageous VA clinical and administrative staff who volunteered for these assignments many of which put them directly in harm’s way.⁵

The VA is not alone in answering the call of COVID-19. In March, despite the grave risk to their health, their life, and their families, the USNS Comfort was deployed to New York City to help with its COVID-19 response while the USNS Mercy assisted in the efforts in Los Angeles. More recently, the military deployed > 700 Military Health System medical and support professionals to support COVID-19 operations in both Texas and California. Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio has taken on a handful of civilian patients with COVID-19 and increase its level I trauma cases as local hospitals have strained under the caseload.⁶

For the PHS Commissioned Corps its first mission is to serve as “America’s health responders.”⁷ This pandemic has intensified the extant health inequities in our country and compounded them with racial injustice and economic disparity. Thus, it is important to recognize that the very purpose of the PHS is to “fight disease, conduct research, and care for patients in underserved communities across the nation.”⁸ More than 3,900 PHS officers have been deployed nationally and internationally in COVID-19 clinical strike teams. Early in the pandemic the clinical response teams were deployed to a long-term care facility in Kirkland, Washington; convention center-based hospitals in New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Washington DC, and Navajo Nation facilities. PHS officers also are providing clinical guidance at Bureau of Prison facilities for infection control and personal protective equipment training.

We know that there are many more examples of heroic service by federal health care professionals and staff than we could locate or celebrate in this brief column. Readers of this journal are well aware of the near constant criticism of the VA and calls for privatization,⁹ the inadequate funding of the PHS,¹⁰ and the recent downsizing of DoD health care¹¹ that threatens to undermine its core functions. The pandemic has powerfully demonstrated that degrading the ability of federal health care to agilely and masterfully mobilize in the event of a public health disaster endangers not just veterans and the military but the health and well-being of a nation, particularly its most vulnerable citizens.

Since the first mobile application (app) was developed in the 1990s, apps have become increasingly integrated into medical practice and training. More than 5.5 million apps were downloadable in 2019,¹ of which more than 300,000 were health related.² In the United States, more than 80% of physicians reported using smartphones for professional purposes in 2016.³ As the complexity of apps and their purpose of use has evolved, regulatory bodies have not adapted adequately to monitor apps that have broad-reaching consequences in medicine.

We review the primary literature on PubMed behind health-related apps that impact dermatologists as well as the government regulation of these apps, with a focus on the 3 most prevalent dermatology-related apps used by dermatology residents in the United States: VisualDx, UpToDate, and Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria. This prevalence is according to a survey emailed to all dermatology residents in the United States by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in 2019 (unpublished data).

VisualDx

VisualDx, which aims to improve diagnostic accuracy and patient safety, contains peer-reviewed data and more than 32,000 images of dermatologic conditions. The editorial board includes more than 50 physicians. It provides opportunities for continuing medical education credit, is used in more than 2300 medical settings, and costs $399.99 annually for a subscription with partial features. Prior to the launch of the app in 2010, some health science professionals noted that the website version lacked references to primary sources.⁴ The same issue carried over to the app, which has evolved to offer artificial intelligence (AI) analysis of photographed skin lesions. However, there are no peer-reviewed publications showing positive impact of the app on diagnostic skills among dermatology residents or on patient outcomes.

UpToDate

UpToDate is a web-based database created in the early 1990s. A corresponding app was created around 2010. Both internal and independent research has demonstrated improved outcomes, and the app is advertised as the only clinical decision support resource associated with improved outcomes, as shown in more than 80 publications.⁵ UpToDate covers more than 11,800 medical topics and contains more than 35,000 graphics. It cites primary sources and uses a published system for grading recommendation strength and evidence quality. The data are processed and produced by a team of more than 7100 physicians as authors, editors, and reviewers. The platform grants continuing medical education credit and is used by more than 1.9 million clinicians in more than 190 countries. A 1-year subscription for an individual US-based physician costs $559. An observational study assessed UpToDate articles for potential conflicts of interest between authors and their recommendations. Of the 6 articles that met inclusion criteria of discussing management of medical conditions that have controversial or mostly brand-name treatment options, all had conflicts of interest, such as naming drugs from companies with which the authors and/or editors had financial relationships.⁶

Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria

The Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria app is a free clinical decision-making tool based on a consensus statement published in 2012 by the AAD, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and American Society for Mohs Surgery.⁷ It helps guide management of more than 200 dermatologic scenarios. Critique has been made that the criteria are partly based on expert opinion and data largely from the United States and has not been revised to incorporate newer data.⁸ There are no publications regarding the app itself.

Regulation of Health-Related Apps

Health-related apps that are designed for utilization by health care providers can be a valuable tool. However, given their prevalence, cost, and potential impact on patient lives, these apps should be well regulated and researched. The general paucity of peer-reviewed literature demonstrating the utility, safety, quality, and accuracy of health-related apps commonly used by providers is a reflection of insufficient mobile health regulation in the United States.

There are 3 primary government agencies responsible for regulating mobile medical apps: the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission, and Office for Civil Rights.⁹ The FDA does not regulate all medical devices. Apps intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, prevention, or treatment of a disease or condition are considered to be medical devices.¹⁰ The FDA regulates those apps only if they are judged to pose more than minimal risk. Apps that are designed only to provide easy access to information related to health conditions or treatment are considered to be minimal risk but can develop into a different risk level such as by offering AI.¹¹ Although the FDA does update its approach to medical devices, including apps and AI- and machine learning–based software, the rate and direction of update has not kept pace with the rapid evolution of apps.¹² In 2019, the FDA began piloting a precertification program that grants long-term approval to organizations that develop apps instead of reviewing each app product individually.¹³ This decrease in premarket oversight is intended to expedite innovation with the hopeful upside of improving patient outcomes but is inconsistent, with the FDA still reviewing other types of medical devices individually.

For apps that are already in use, the Federal Trade Commission only gets involved in response to deceptive or unfair acts or practices relating to privacy, data security, and false or misleading claims about safety or performance. It may be more beneficial for consumers if those apps had a more stringent initial approval process. The Office for Civil Rights enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act when relevant to apps.

Nongovernment agencies also are involved in app regulation. The FDA believes sharing more regulatory responsibility with private industry would promote efficiency.¹⁴ Google does not allow apps that contain false or misleading health claims,¹⁵ and Apple may scrutinize medical apps that could provide inaccurate data or be used for diagnosing or treating patients.¹⁶ Xcertia, a nonprofit organization founded by the American Medical Association and others, develops standards for the security, privacy, content, and operability of health-related apps, but those standards have not been adopted by other parties. Ultimately, nongovernment agencies are not responsible for public health and do not boast the government’s ability to enforce rules or ensure public safety.

Final Thoughts

The AAD survey of US dermatology residents found that the top consideration when choosing apps was up-to-date and accurate information; however, the 3 most prevalent apps among those same respondents did not need government approval and are not required to contain up-to-date data or to improve clinical outcomes, similar to most other health-related apps. This discrepancy is concerning considering the increasing utilization of apps for physician education and health care delivery and the increasing complexity of those apps. In light of these results, the potential decrease in federal premarket regulation suggested by the FDA’s precertification program seems inappropriate. It is important for the government to take responsibility for regulating health-related apps and to find a balance between too much regulation delaying innovation and too little regulation hurting physician training and patient care. It also is important for providers to be aware of the evidence and oversight behind the technologies they use for professional purposes.

Since the first mobile application (app) was developed in the 1990s, apps have become increasingly integrated into medical practice and training. More than 5.5 million apps were downloadable in 2019,¹ of which more than 300,000 were health related.² In the United States, more than 80% of physicians reported using smartphones for professional purposes in 2016.³ As the complexity of apps and their purpose of use has evolved, regulatory bodies have not adapted adequately to monitor apps that have broad-reaching consequences in medicine.

We review the primary literature on PubMed behind health-related apps that impact dermatologists as well as the government regulation of these apps, with a focus on the 3 most prevalent dermatology-related apps used by dermatology residents in the United States: VisualDx, UpToDate, and Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria. This prevalence is according to a survey emailed to all dermatology residents in the United States by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in 2019 (unpublished data).

VisualDx

VisualDx, which aims to improve diagnostic accuracy and patient safety, contains peer-reviewed data and more than 32,000 images of dermatologic conditions. The editorial board includes more than 50 physicians. It provides opportunities for continuing medical education credit, is used in more than 2300 medical settings, and costs $399.99 annually for a subscription with partial features. Prior to the launch of the app in 2010, some health science professionals noted that the website version lacked references to primary sources.⁴ The same issue carried over to the app, which has evolved to offer artificial intelligence (AI) analysis of photographed skin lesions. However, there are no peer-reviewed publications showing positive impact of the app on diagnostic skills among dermatology residents or on patient outcomes.

UpToDate

UpToDate is a web-based database created in the early 1990s. A corresponding app was created around 2010. Both internal and independent research has demonstrated improved outcomes, and the app is advertised as the only clinical decision support resource associated with improved outcomes, as shown in more than 80 publications.⁵ UpToDate covers more than 11,800 medical topics and contains more than 35,000 graphics. It cites primary sources and uses a published system for grading recommendation strength and evidence quality. The data are processed and produced by a team of more than 7100 physicians as authors, editors, and reviewers. The platform grants continuing medical education credit and is used by more than 1.9 million clinicians in more than 190 countries. A 1-year subscription for an individual US-based physician costs $559. An observational study assessed UpToDate articles for potential conflicts of interest between authors and their recommendations. Of the 6 articles that met inclusion criteria of discussing management of medical conditions that have controversial or mostly brand-name treatment options, all had conflicts of interest, such as naming drugs from companies with which the authors and/or editors had financial relationships.⁶

Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria

The Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria app is a free clinical decision-making tool based on a consensus statement published in 2012 by the AAD, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and American Society for Mohs Surgery.⁷ It helps guide management of more than 200 dermatologic scenarios. Critique has been made that the criteria are partly based on expert opinion and data largely from the United States and has not been revised to incorporate newer data.⁸ There are no publications regarding the app itself.

Regulation of Health-Related Apps

Health-related apps that are designed for utilization by health care providers can be a valuable tool. However, given their prevalence, cost, and potential impact on patient lives, these apps should be well regulated and researched. The general paucity of peer-reviewed literature demonstrating the utility, safety, quality, and accuracy of health-related apps commonly used by providers is a reflection of insufficient mobile health regulation in the United States.

There are 3 primary government agencies responsible for regulating mobile medical apps: the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission, and Office for Civil Rights.⁹ The FDA does not regulate all medical devices. Apps intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, prevention, or treatment of a disease or condition are considered to be medical devices.¹⁰ The FDA regulates those apps only if they are judged to pose more than minimal risk. Apps that are designed only to provide easy access to information related to health conditions or treatment are considered to be minimal risk but can develop into a different risk level such as by offering AI.¹¹ Although the FDA does update its approach to medical devices, including apps and AI- and machine learning–based software, the rate and direction of update has not kept pace with the rapid evolution of apps.¹² In 2019, the FDA began piloting a precertification program that grants long-term approval to organizations that develop apps instead of reviewing each app product individually.¹³ This decrease in premarket oversight is intended to expedite innovation with the hopeful upside of improving patient outcomes but is inconsistent, with the FDA still reviewing other types of medical devices individually.

For apps that are already in use, the Federal Trade Commission only gets involved in response to deceptive or unfair acts or practices relating to privacy, data security, and false or misleading claims about safety or performance. It may be more beneficial for consumers if those apps had a more stringent initial approval process. The Office for Civil Rights enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act when relevant to apps.

Nongovernment agencies also are involved in app regulation. The FDA believes sharing more regulatory responsibility with private industry would promote efficiency.¹⁴ Google does not allow apps that contain false or misleading health claims,¹⁵ and Apple may scrutinize medical apps that could provide inaccurate data or be used for diagnosing or treating patients.¹⁶ Xcertia, a nonprofit organization founded by the American Medical Association and others, develops standards for the security, privacy, content, and operability of health-related apps, but those standards have not been adopted by other parties. Ultimately, nongovernment agencies are not responsible for public health and do not boast the government’s ability to enforce rules or ensure public safety.

Final Thoughts

The AAD survey of US dermatology residents found that the top consideration when choosing apps was up-to-date and accurate information; however, the 3 most prevalent apps among those same respondents did not need government approval and are not required to contain up-to-date data or to improve clinical outcomes, similar to most other health-related apps. This discrepancy is concerning considering the increasing utilization of apps for physician education and health care delivery and the increasing complexity of those apps. In light of these results, the potential decrease in federal premarket regulation suggested by the FDA’s precertification program seems inappropriate. It is important for the government to take responsibility for regulating health-related apps and to find a balance between too much regulation delaying innovation and too little regulation hurting physician training and patient care. It also is important for providers to be aware of the evidence and oversight behind the technologies they use for professional purposes.

Since the first mobile application (app) was developed in the 1990s, apps have become increasingly integrated into medical practice and training. More than 5.5 million apps were downloadable in 2019,¹ of which more than 300,000 were health related.² In the United States, more than 80% of physicians reported using smartphones for professional purposes in 2016.³ As the complexity of apps and their purpose of use has evolved, regulatory bodies have not adapted adequately to monitor apps that have broad-reaching consequences in medicine.

We review the primary literature on PubMed behind health-related apps that impact dermatologists as well as the government regulation of these apps, with a focus on the 3 most prevalent dermatology-related apps used by dermatology residents in the United States: VisualDx, UpToDate, and Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria. This prevalence is according to a survey emailed to all dermatology residents in the United States by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in 2019 (unpublished data).

VisualDx

VisualDx, which aims to improve diagnostic accuracy and patient safety, contains peer-reviewed data and more than 32,000 images of dermatologic conditions. The editorial board includes more than 50 physicians. It provides opportunities for continuing medical education credit, is used in more than 2300 medical settings, and costs $399.99 annually for a subscription with partial features. Prior to the launch of the app in 2010, some health science professionals noted that the website version lacked references to primary sources.⁴ The same issue carried over to the app, which has evolved to offer artificial intelligence (AI) analysis of photographed skin lesions. However, there are no peer-reviewed publications showing positive impact of the app on diagnostic skills among dermatology residents or on patient outcomes.

UpToDate

UpToDate is a web-based database created in the early 1990s. A corresponding app was created around 2010. Both internal and independent research has demonstrated improved outcomes, and the app is advertised as the only clinical decision support resource associated with improved outcomes, as shown in more than 80 publications.⁵ UpToDate covers more than 11,800 medical topics and contains more than 35,000 graphics. It cites primary sources and uses a published system for grading recommendation strength and evidence quality. The data are processed and produced by a team of more than 7100 physicians as authors, editors, and reviewers. The platform grants continuing medical education credit and is used by more than 1.9 million clinicians in more than 190 countries. A 1-year subscription for an individual US-based physician costs $559. An observational study assessed UpToDate articles for potential conflicts of interest between authors and their recommendations. Of the 6 articles that met inclusion criteria of discussing management of medical conditions that have controversial or mostly brand-name treatment options, all had conflicts of interest, such as naming drugs from companies with which the authors and/or editors had financial relationships.⁶

Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria

The Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria app is a free clinical decision-making tool based on a consensus statement published in 2012 by the AAD, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and American Society for Mohs Surgery.⁷ It helps guide management of more than 200 dermatologic scenarios. Critique has been made that the criteria are partly based on expert opinion and data largely from the United States and has not been revised to incorporate newer data.⁸ There are no publications regarding the app itself.

Regulation of Health-Related Apps

Health-related apps that are designed for utilization by health care providers can be a valuable tool. However, given their prevalence, cost, and potential impact on patient lives, these apps should be well regulated and researched. The general paucity of peer-reviewed literature demonstrating the utility, safety, quality, and accuracy of health-related apps commonly used by providers is a reflection of insufficient mobile health regulation in the United States.

There are 3 primary government agencies responsible for regulating mobile medical apps: the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission, and Office for Civil Rights.⁹ The FDA does not regulate all medical devices. Apps intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, prevention, or treatment of a disease or condition are considered to be medical devices.¹⁰ The FDA regulates those apps only if they are judged to pose more than minimal risk. Apps that are designed only to provide easy access to information related to health conditions or treatment are considered to be minimal risk but can develop into a different risk level such as by offering AI.¹¹ Although the FDA does update its approach to medical devices, including apps and AI- and machine learning–based software, the rate and direction of update has not kept pace with the rapid evolution of apps.¹² In 2019, the FDA began piloting a precertification program that grants long-term approval to organizations that develop apps instead of reviewing each app product individually.¹³ This decrease in premarket oversight is intended to expedite innovation with the hopeful upside of improving patient outcomes but is inconsistent, with the FDA still reviewing other types of medical devices individually.

For apps that are already in use, the Federal Trade Commission only gets involved in response to deceptive or unfair acts or practices relating to privacy, data security, and false or misleading claims about safety or performance. It may be more beneficial for consumers if those apps had a more stringent initial approval process. The Office for Civil Rights enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act when relevant to apps.

Nongovernment agencies also are involved in app regulation. The FDA believes sharing more regulatory responsibility with private industry would promote efficiency.¹⁴ Google does not allow apps that contain false or misleading health claims,¹⁵ and Apple may scrutinize medical apps that could provide inaccurate data or be used for diagnosing or treating patients.¹⁶ Xcertia, a nonprofit organization founded by the American Medical Association and others, develops standards for the security, privacy, content, and operability of health-related apps, but those standards have not been adopted by other parties. Ultimately, nongovernment agencies are not responsible for public health and do not boast the government’s ability to enforce rules or ensure public safety.

Final Thoughts

The AAD survey of US dermatology residents found that the top consideration when choosing apps was up-to-date and accurate information; however, the 3 most prevalent apps among those same respondents did not need government approval and are not required to contain up-to-date data or to improve clinical outcomes, similar to most other health-related apps. This discrepancy is concerning considering the increasing utilization of apps for physician education and health care delivery and the increasing complexity of those apps. In light of these results, the potential decrease in federal premarket regulation suggested by the FDA’s precertification program seems inappropriate. It is important for the government to take responsibility for regulating health-related apps and to find a balance between too much regulation delaying innovation and too little regulation hurting physician training and patient care. It also is important for providers to be aware of the evidence and oversight behind the technologies they use for professional purposes.

Let me start with these 3 words that really should never have to be said: Black Lives Matter.

It was hard to sit down to write this piece—not just because it’s a sunny Sunday morning, but because I’m still afraid I’ll get it wrong, show my white privilege, offend someone. George Floyd’s murder has been a reckoning for Black Americans, for the police, for the nation (maybe the world), and for me. I live in a multi-racial household, and we have redoubled our efforts to talk about racism and bias and question our assumptions as part of our daily conversations. After Mr. Floyd was killed, I decided that I would try to be less afraid of getting it wrong and be more outspoken about my support for Black Lives Matter and for the work that we need to do in this country, and in ourselves, to become more antiracist.

Here are some things that I know: I know that study after study has shown that health care and health outcomes are worse for Black people than for White people. I know that people of color are sickening and dying with COVID-19 before our eyes, just as other pandemics, such as HIV, differentially affect communities of color. I know, too, that a Black physician executive who lives around the corner from me has been stopped by our local police more than 10 times; I have been stopped by our local police exactly once.

I don’t know how to fix it. But I do know that my silence won’t help. Here are some things I am trying to do at home and at work: I am educating myself about race and racism. I’m not asking my Black peers, patients, or colleagues to teach me, but I am listening to what they tell me, when they want to tell me. I am reading books like Ibram Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist and Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other. I challenge myself to read articles that I might have skipped over—because they were simply too painful. People of color don’t have a choice about facing their pain. I have that choice—it’s a privilege—and I choose to be an ally.

I’m speaking up even when I’m afraid that I might say the wrong thing. This can take several forms—questioning assumptions about race and racism when it comes up, which is often, in medicine. It also means amplifying the voices that don’t always get heard—asking a young person of color her opinion in a meeting, retweeting the thoughts of a Black colleague, thanking someone publicly or personally for a comment, an idea, or the kernel of something important. I ask people to correct me, and I try to be humble in accepting criticism or correction.

Being a better ally also means putting our money where our mouth is, supporting Black-owned businesses and restaurants, and donating to causes that support equality and justice. We can diversify our social media feeds. We have to be willing to be excluded from the conversation—if you’re white or straight or cis-gendered, it’s not about you—and be ready to feel uncomfortable. We can encourage our organizations to do better. I’m proud of my organization, which had already started working to make our organizational culture even more inclusive.

Black Lives Matter. I’m looking forward to a day when that is so obvious that we don’t have to say it. Until then, I’m going to be hard at work with my head, my ears, and my whole heart.

Let me start with these 3 words that really should never have to be said: Black Lives Matter.

It was hard to sit down to write this piece—not just because it’s a sunny Sunday morning, but because I’m still afraid I’ll get it wrong, show my white privilege, offend someone. George Floyd’s murder has been a reckoning for Black Americans, for the police, for the nation (maybe the world), and for me. I live in a multi-racial household, and we have redoubled our efforts to talk about racism and bias and question our assumptions as part of our daily conversations. After Mr. Floyd was killed, I decided that I would try to be less afraid of getting it wrong and be more outspoken about my support for Black Lives Matter and for the work that we need to do in this country, and in ourselves, to become more antiracist.

Here are some things that I know: I know that study after study has shown that health care and health outcomes are worse for Black people than for White people. I know that people of color are sickening and dying with COVID-19 before our eyes, just as other pandemics, such as HIV, differentially affect communities of color. I know, too, that a Black physician executive who lives around the corner from me has been stopped by our local police more than 10 times; I have been stopped by our local police exactly once.

I don’t know how to fix it. But I do know that my silence won’t help. Here are some things I am trying to do at home and at work: I am educating myself about race and racism. I’m not asking my Black peers, patients, or colleagues to teach me, but I am listening to what they tell me, when they want to tell me. I am reading books like Ibram Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist and Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other. I challenge myself to read articles that I might have skipped over—because they were simply too painful. People of color don’t have a choice about facing their pain. I have that choice—it’s a privilege—and I choose to be an ally.

I’m speaking up even when I’m afraid that I might say the wrong thing. This can take several forms—questioning assumptions about race and racism when it comes up, which is often, in medicine. It also means amplifying the voices that don’t always get heard—asking a young person of color her opinion in a meeting, retweeting the thoughts of a Black colleague, thanking someone publicly or personally for a comment, an idea, or the kernel of something important. I ask people to correct me, and I try to be humble in accepting criticism or correction.

Being a better ally also means putting our money where our mouth is, supporting Black-owned businesses and restaurants, and donating to causes that support equality and justice. We can diversify our social media feeds. We have to be willing to be excluded from the conversation—if you’re white or straight or cis-gendered, it’s not about you—and be ready to feel uncomfortable. We can encourage our organizations to do better. I’m proud of my organization, which had already started working to make our organizational culture even more inclusive.

Black Lives Matter. I’m looking forward to a day when that is so obvious that we don’t have to say it. Until then, I’m going to be hard at work with my head, my ears, and my whole heart.

Let me start with these 3 words that really should never have to be said: Black Lives Matter.

It was hard to sit down to write this piece—not just because it’s a sunny Sunday morning, but because I’m still afraid I’ll get it wrong, show my white privilege, offend someone. George Floyd’s murder has been a reckoning for Black Americans, for the police, for the nation (maybe the world), and for me. I live in a multi-racial household, and we have redoubled our efforts to talk about racism and bias and question our assumptions as part of our daily conversations. After Mr. Floyd was killed, I decided that I would try to be less afraid of getting it wrong and be more outspoken about my support for Black Lives Matter and for the work that we need to do in this country, and in ourselves, to become more antiracist.

Here are some things that I know: I know that study after study has shown that health care and health outcomes are worse for Black people than for White people. I know that people of color are sickening and dying with COVID-19 before our eyes, just as other pandemics, such as HIV, differentially affect communities of color. I know, too, that a Black physician executive who lives around the corner from me has been stopped by our local police more than 10 times; I have been stopped by our local police exactly once.

I don’t know how to fix it. But I do know that my silence won’t help. Here are some things I am trying to do at home and at work: I am educating myself about race and racism. I’m not asking my Black peers, patients, or colleagues to teach me, but I am listening to what they tell me, when they want to tell me. I am reading books like Ibram Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist and Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other. I challenge myself to read articles that I might have skipped over—because they were simply too painful. People of color don’t have a choice about facing their pain. I have that choice—it’s a privilege—and I choose to be an ally.

I’m speaking up even when I’m afraid that I might say the wrong thing. This can take several forms—questioning assumptions about race and racism when it comes up, which is often, in medicine. It also means amplifying the voices that don’t always get heard—asking a young person of color her opinion in a meeting, retweeting the thoughts of a Black colleague, thanking someone publicly or personally for a comment, an idea, or the kernel of something important. I ask people to correct me, and I try to be humble in accepting criticism or correction.

Being a better ally also means putting our money where our mouth is, supporting Black-owned businesses and restaurants, and donating to causes that support equality and justice. We can diversify our social media feeds. We have to be willing to be excluded from the conversation—if you’re white or straight or cis-gendered, it’s not about you—and be ready to feel uncomfortable. We can encourage our organizations to do better. I’m proud of my organization, which had already started working to make our organizational culture even more inclusive.

Black Lives Matter. I’m looking forward to a day when that is so obvious that we don’t have to say it. Until then, I’m going to be hard at work with my head, my ears, and my whole heart.

CASE Black woman in stable labor expresses fear 
 

A 29-year-old Black woman (G1) at 39 0/7 weeks’ gestation presents to your labor and delivery unit reporting leaking fluid and contractions. She is found to have ruptured membranes and reassuring fetal testing. Her cervix is 4 cm dilated, and you recommend admission for expectant management of labor. She is otherwise healthy and has no significant medical history. 

As you are finishing admitting this patient, you ask if she has any remaining questions. She asks quietly, “Am I going to die today?”

You provide reassurance of her stable clinical picture, then pause and ask the patient about her fears. She looks at you and says, “They didn’t believe Serena Williams, so why would they believe me?”

Your patient is referencing Serena Williams’ harrowing and public postpartum course, complicated by a pulmonary embolism and several reoperations.¹ While many of us in the medical field may read this account as a story of challenges with an ultimate triumph, many expectant Black mothers hold Serena’s experience as a cautionary tale about deep-rooted inequities in our health care system that lead to potentially dangerous outcomes. 

Disparities in care 

They are right to be concerned. In the United States, Black mothers are 4 times more likely to die during or after pregnancy, mostly from preventable causes,² and nearly 50% more likely to have a preterm delivery.³ These disparities extend beyond the delivery room to all aspects of ObGyn care. Black women are 2 to 3 times more likely to die from cervical cancer, and they are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage, thus rendering treatment less effective.⁴ Black patients also have a higher burden of obesity, diabetes, and cardiac disease, and when they present to the hospital, receive evidence-based treatment at lower rates compared with White patients.⁵

Mourning the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, amongst the many other Black lives taken unjustly in the United States, has highlighted egregious practices against people of color embedded within the systems meant to protect and serve our communities. We as ObGyn physicians must take professional onus to recognize a devastating but humbling truth—systemic racism has long pervaded our health care practices and systems, and now more than ever, we must do more to stand by and for our patients. 

As ObGyns, we help support patients through some of the happiest, most vulnerable, and potentially most dire moments of their lives. We help patients through the birth of their children, reproductive struggles, gynecologic concerns, and cancer diagnoses. Many of us chose this field for the privilege of caring for patients at these critical moments in their lives, but we have often neglected the racism present in our practices, our hospital settings, and the medical system itself. We often fail to acknowledge our own implicit bias and the role that we play in contributing to acts and experiences of racism that our patients and our colleagues face on a daily basis. 

Racism in our origins 

The history of obstetrics and gynecology shows us a long record of physicians perpetrating injustices that target marginalized communities of color. Dr. James Sims, often given the title of “father of modern gynecology,” performed numerous experiments on unanesthetized Black female slaves to develop procedures for fistulae repair and other surgical techniques.⁶ Throughout the twentieth century, dating as recent as 1979, state laws written in the name of public safety forcibly sterilized women of color to control an “undesirable population.”⁷ When a patient of color declines a method of long-acting reversible contraception, birth control pills, or tubal ligation, do you take the time to reflect on the potential context of the patient’s decision? 

It is critical to recognize the legacy that these acts have on our patients today, leading to a higher burden of disease and an understandable distrust of the medical system. The uncovering of the unethical practices of the National Institutions of Health‒funded Tuskegee syphilis study, in which hundreds of Black men with latent syphilis were passively monitored despite the knowledge of a proven treatment, has attributed to a measurable decrease in life expectancy among Black males.⁸ Even as we face the COVID-19 pandemic, the undercurrent of racism continues to do harm. Black patients are 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their White counterparts. This disparity, in part, is a product of a higher burden of comorbidities and the privilege associated with shelter-in-place policies, which disproportionately strain communities of color.⁹

We as a medical community need to do better for our patients. No matter how difficult to confront, each of us must acknowledge our own biases and our duty to combat persistent and perpetual racism in our medical system. We need to commit to amplifying the voices of our Black patients and colleagues. It is not enough to celebrate diversity for performance sake—it is time to recognize that diversity saves lives.

We have a responsibility to rectify these traditions of injustice and work toward a safer, more equitable, healthy future for our patients and their families. While this pledge may seem daunting, changes at individual and systems levels can make a difference for all patients that come through our doors. In addition, to honor our oath to “do no harm,” we must act; Black lives matter, and we are charged as medical providers to help our patients thrive, especially those from historically oppressed communities and who continue to suffer inexcusable injustices in health care and beyond. 

Take action

Here is a collection of ways to institute an antiracist environment and more equitable care for your patients.
 

Self-reflect and educate

• Learn about the role racism plays in ObGyn and modern medicine. One place to start: read “Medical Bondage: Race, Gender and the Origins of American Gynecology” by Deidre Cooper Owens. Also check out articles and key readings curated by the Black Mamas Matter Alliance. 
• Introduce and sustain antiracism training for all staff in your clinic or hospital system. To start, consider taking these free and quick implicit bias tests at a staff or department meeting. 
• Familiarize yourself and your colleagues with facets of reproductive justice—the human right to have children, to not have children, and to nurture children in a safe and healthy environment—and incorporate these values in your practice. Request trainings in reproductive justice from community groups like Sister Song. 
• Sign up for updates for state and national bills addressing health inequity and access to reproductive health services. Show your support by calling your congress-people, testifying, or donating to a cause that promotes these bills.  You can stay up to date on national issues with government affairs newsletters from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sign up here. 
• Continue the conversation and re-evaluate your personal and institution’s efforts to combat racism and social and reproductive injustices. 

Provide access to high-quality reproductive health care

• Ask your patients what barriers they faced to come to your clinic and receive the care they needed. Consider incorporating the following screening tools regarding social determinants of health: PRAPARE screening tool, AAFP screening tool. 
• Promote access to insurance and support programs, including nutrition, exercise and wellness, and safe home and school environments. Look up resources available to your patients by their zip codes using AAFP’s Neighborhood Navigator. 
• Help patients access their medications at affordable prices in their neighborhoods by using free apps. Use the GoodRx app to identify discounts for prescriptions at various pharmacies, and search the Bedsider app to find out how your patients can get their birth control for free and delivered to their homes.
• Expand access to language services for patients who do not speak English as their first language. If working in a resource-limited setting, use the Google Translate app. Print out these free handouts for birth control fact sheets in different languages. 
• Establish standardized protocols for common treatment paradigms to reduce the influence of bias in clinical scenarios. For example, institute a protocol for managing postoperative pain to ensure equal access to treatment. 
• Institute the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) patient safety bundle on the Reduction of Peripartum Racial/Ethnic Disparities. Learn more about AIM’s maternal safety and quality improvement initiative to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality here. 

Support a diverse workforce

• Designate and/or hire a Diversity and Inclusion Officer at your institution to ensure that hiring practices actively achieve a diverse workforce and that employees feel supported in the work environment. Consider coalition-building between hospitals, like the UPHS-CHOP Alliance of Minority Physicians.
• Recruit diverse applicants by advertising positions to groups that focus on the advancement of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Engage with your local chapter of the National Medical Association and American Medical Women’s Association. 
• Have a system in place for anonymous reporting of incidents involving bias or discrimination against staff, and develop a protocol to ensure action is taken in case of such incidents.
• Institute a recurring conference or Grand Rounds across disciplines to discuss the impacts of bias and discrimination on patients and providers at your institution. View examples of these conferences here.
• Ensure invited speakers and other educational opportunities are comprised of diverse representation.
• Create a work environment with safe spaces for the discussion of racism, discrimination, and bias. 

CASE Black woman in stable labor expresses fear 
 

A 29-year-old Black woman (G1) at 39 0/7 weeks’ gestation presents to your labor and delivery unit reporting leaking fluid and contractions. She is found to have ruptured membranes and reassuring fetal testing. Her cervix is 4 cm dilated, and you recommend admission for expectant management of labor. She is otherwise healthy and has no significant medical history. 

As you are finishing admitting this patient, you ask if she has any remaining questions. She asks quietly, “Am I going to die today?”

You provide reassurance of her stable clinical picture, then pause and ask the patient about her fears. She looks at you and says, “They didn’t believe Serena Williams, so why would they believe me?”

Your patient is referencing Serena Williams’ harrowing and public postpartum course, complicated by a pulmonary embolism and several reoperations.¹ While many of us in the medical field may read this account as a story of challenges with an ultimate triumph, many expectant Black mothers hold Serena’s experience as a cautionary tale about deep-rooted inequities in our health care system that lead to potentially dangerous outcomes. 

Disparities in care 

They are right to be concerned. In the United States, Black mothers are 4 times more likely to die during or after pregnancy, mostly from preventable causes,² and nearly 50% more likely to have a preterm delivery.³ These disparities extend beyond the delivery room to all aspects of ObGyn care. Black women are 2 to 3 times more likely to die from cervical cancer, and they are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage, thus rendering treatment less effective.⁴ Black patients also have a higher burden of obesity, diabetes, and cardiac disease, and when they present to the hospital, receive evidence-based treatment at lower rates compared with White patients.⁵

Mourning the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, amongst the many other Black lives taken unjustly in the United States, has highlighted egregious practices against people of color embedded within the systems meant to protect and serve our communities. We as ObGyn physicians must take professional onus to recognize a devastating but humbling truth—systemic racism has long pervaded our health care practices and systems, and now more than ever, we must do more to stand by and for our patients. 

As ObGyns, we help support patients through some of the happiest, most vulnerable, and potentially most dire moments of their lives. We help patients through the birth of their children, reproductive struggles, gynecologic concerns, and cancer diagnoses. Many of us chose this field for the privilege of caring for patients at these critical moments in their lives, but we have often neglected the racism present in our practices, our hospital settings, and the medical system itself. We often fail to acknowledge our own implicit bias and the role that we play in contributing to acts and experiences of racism that our patients and our colleagues face on a daily basis. 

Racism in our origins 

The history of obstetrics and gynecology shows us a long record of physicians perpetrating injustices that target marginalized communities of color. Dr. James Sims, often given the title of “father of modern gynecology,” performed numerous experiments on unanesthetized Black female slaves to develop procedures for fistulae repair and other surgical techniques.⁶ Throughout the twentieth century, dating as recent as 1979, state laws written in the name of public safety forcibly sterilized women of color to control an “undesirable population.”⁷ When a patient of color declines a method of long-acting reversible contraception, birth control pills, or tubal ligation, do you take the time to reflect on the potential context of the patient’s decision? 

It is critical to recognize the legacy that these acts have on our patients today, leading to a higher burden of disease and an understandable distrust of the medical system. The uncovering of the unethical practices of the National Institutions of Health‒funded Tuskegee syphilis study, in which hundreds of Black men with latent syphilis were passively monitored despite the knowledge of a proven treatment, has attributed to a measurable decrease in life expectancy among Black males.⁸ Even as we face the COVID-19 pandemic, the undercurrent of racism continues to do harm. Black patients are 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their White counterparts. This disparity, in part, is a product of a higher burden of comorbidities and the privilege associated with shelter-in-place policies, which disproportionately strain communities of color.⁹

We as a medical community need to do better for our patients. No matter how difficult to confront, each of us must acknowledge our own biases and our duty to combat persistent and perpetual racism in our medical system. We need to commit to amplifying the voices of our Black patients and colleagues. It is not enough to celebrate diversity for performance sake—it is time to recognize that diversity saves lives.

We have a responsibility to rectify these traditions of injustice and work toward a safer, more equitable, healthy future for our patients and their families. While this pledge may seem daunting, changes at individual and systems levels can make a difference for all patients that come through our doors. In addition, to honor our oath to “do no harm,” we must act; Black lives matter, and we are charged as medical providers to help our patients thrive, especially those from historically oppressed communities and who continue to suffer inexcusable injustices in health care and beyond. 

Take action

Here is a collection of ways to institute an antiracist environment and more equitable care for your patients.
 

Self-reflect and educate

• Learn about the role racism plays in ObGyn and modern medicine. One place to start: read “Medical Bondage: Race, Gender and the Origins of American Gynecology” by Deidre Cooper Owens. Also check out articles and key readings curated by the Black Mamas Matter Alliance. 
• Introduce and sustain antiracism training for all staff in your clinic or hospital system. To start, consider taking these free and quick implicit bias tests at a staff or department meeting. 
• Familiarize yourself and your colleagues with facets of reproductive justice—the human right to have children, to not have children, and to nurture children in a safe and healthy environment—and incorporate these values in your practice. Request trainings in reproductive justice from community groups like Sister Song. 
• Sign up for updates for state and national bills addressing health inequity and access to reproductive health services. Show your support by calling your congress-people, testifying, or donating to a cause that promotes these bills.  You can stay up to date on national issues with government affairs newsletters from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sign up here. 
• Continue the conversation and re-evaluate your personal and institution’s efforts to combat racism and social and reproductive injustices. 

Provide access to high-quality reproductive health care

• Ask your patients what barriers they faced to come to your clinic and receive the care they needed. Consider incorporating the following screening tools regarding social determinants of health: PRAPARE screening tool, AAFP screening tool. 
• Promote access to insurance and support programs, including nutrition, exercise and wellness, and safe home and school environments. Look up resources available to your patients by their zip codes using AAFP’s Neighborhood Navigator. 
• Help patients access their medications at affordable prices in their neighborhoods by using free apps. Use the GoodRx app to identify discounts for prescriptions at various pharmacies, and search the Bedsider app to find out how your patients can get their birth control for free and delivered to their homes.
• Expand access to language services for patients who do not speak English as their first language. If working in a resource-limited setting, use the Google Translate app. Print out these free handouts for birth control fact sheets in different languages. 
• Establish standardized protocols for common treatment paradigms to reduce the influence of bias in clinical scenarios. For example, institute a protocol for managing postoperative pain to ensure equal access to treatment. 
• Institute the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) patient safety bundle on the Reduction of Peripartum Racial/Ethnic Disparities. Learn more about AIM’s maternal safety and quality improvement initiative to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality here. 

Support a diverse workforce

• Designate and/or hire a Diversity and Inclusion Officer at your institution to ensure that hiring practices actively achieve a diverse workforce and that employees feel supported in the work environment. Consider coalition-building between hospitals, like the UPHS-CHOP Alliance of Minority Physicians.
• Recruit diverse applicants by advertising positions to groups that focus on the advancement of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Engage with your local chapter of the National Medical Association and American Medical Women’s Association. 
• Have a system in place for anonymous reporting of incidents involving bias or discrimination against staff, and develop a protocol to ensure action is taken in case of such incidents.
• Institute a recurring conference or Grand Rounds across disciplines to discuss the impacts of bias and discrimination on patients and providers at your institution. View examples of these conferences here.
• Ensure invited speakers and other educational opportunities are comprised of diverse representation.
• Create a work environment with safe spaces for the discussion of racism, discrimination, and bias. 

CASE Black woman in stable labor expresses fear 
 

A 29-year-old Black woman (G1) at 39 0/7 weeks’ gestation presents to your labor and delivery unit reporting leaking fluid and contractions. She is found to have ruptured membranes and reassuring fetal testing. Her cervix is 4 cm dilated, and you recommend admission for expectant management of labor. She is otherwise healthy and has no significant medical history. 

As you are finishing admitting this patient, you ask if she has any remaining questions. She asks quietly, “Am I going to die today?”

You provide reassurance of her stable clinical picture, then pause and ask the patient about her fears. She looks at you and says, “They didn’t believe Serena Williams, so why would they believe me?”

Your patient is referencing Serena Williams’ harrowing and public postpartum course, complicated by a pulmonary embolism and several reoperations.¹ While many of us in the medical field may read this account as a story of challenges with an ultimate triumph, many expectant Black mothers hold Serena’s experience as a cautionary tale about deep-rooted inequities in our health care system that lead to potentially dangerous outcomes. 

Disparities in care 

They are right to be concerned. In the United States, Black mothers are 4 times more likely to die during or after pregnancy, mostly from preventable causes,² and nearly 50% more likely to have a preterm delivery.³ These disparities extend beyond the delivery room to all aspects of ObGyn care. Black women are 2 to 3 times more likely to die from cervical cancer, and they are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage, thus rendering treatment less effective.⁴ Black patients also have a higher burden of obesity, diabetes, and cardiac disease, and when they present to the hospital, receive evidence-based treatment at lower rates compared with White patients.⁵

Mourning the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, amongst the many other Black lives taken unjustly in the United States, has highlighted egregious practices against people of color embedded within the systems meant to protect and serve our communities. We as ObGyn physicians must take professional onus to recognize a devastating but humbling truth—systemic racism has long pervaded our health care practices and systems, and now more than ever, we must do more to stand by and for our patients. 

As ObGyns, we help support patients through some of the happiest, most vulnerable, and potentially most dire moments of their lives. We help patients through the birth of their children, reproductive struggles, gynecologic concerns, and cancer diagnoses. Many of us chose this field for the privilege of caring for patients at these critical moments in their lives, but we have often neglected the racism present in our practices, our hospital settings, and the medical system itself. We often fail to acknowledge our own implicit bias and the role that we play in contributing to acts and experiences of racism that our patients and our colleagues face on a daily basis. 

Racism in our origins 

The history of obstetrics and gynecology shows us a long record of physicians perpetrating injustices that target marginalized communities of color. Dr. James Sims, often given the title of “father of modern gynecology,” performed numerous experiments on unanesthetized Black female slaves to develop procedures for fistulae repair and other surgical techniques.⁶ Throughout the twentieth century, dating as recent as 1979, state laws written in the name of public safety forcibly sterilized women of color to control an “undesirable population.”⁷ When a patient of color declines a method of long-acting reversible contraception, birth control pills, or tubal ligation, do you take the time to reflect on the potential context of the patient’s decision? 

It is critical to recognize the legacy that these acts have on our patients today, leading to a higher burden of disease and an understandable distrust of the medical system. The uncovering of the unethical practices of the National Institutions of Health‒funded Tuskegee syphilis study, in which hundreds of Black men with latent syphilis were passively monitored despite the knowledge of a proven treatment, has attributed to a measurable decrease in life expectancy among Black males.⁸ Even as we face the COVID-19 pandemic, the undercurrent of racism continues to do harm. Black patients are 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their White counterparts. This disparity, in part, is a product of a higher burden of comorbidities and the privilege associated with shelter-in-place policies, which disproportionately strain communities of color.⁹

We as a medical community need to do better for our patients. No matter how difficult to confront, each of us must acknowledge our own biases and our duty to combat persistent and perpetual racism in our medical system. We need to commit to amplifying the voices of our Black patients and colleagues. It is not enough to celebrate diversity for performance sake—it is time to recognize that diversity saves lives.

We have a responsibility to rectify these traditions of injustice and work toward a safer, more equitable, healthy future for our patients and their families. While this pledge may seem daunting, changes at individual and systems levels can make a difference for all patients that come through our doors. In addition, to honor our oath to “do no harm,” we must act; Black lives matter, and we are charged as medical providers to help our patients thrive, especially those from historically oppressed communities and who continue to suffer inexcusable injustices in health care and beyond. 

Take action

Here is a collection of ways to institute an antiracist environment and more equitable care for your patients.
 

Self-reflect and educate

• Learn about the role racism plays in ObGyn and modern medicine. One place to start: read “Medical Bondage: Race, Gender and the Origins of American Gynecology” by Deidre Cooper Owens. Also check out articles and key readings curated by the Black Mamas Matter Alliance. 
• Introduce and sustain antiracism training for all staff in your clinic or hospital system. To start, consider taking these free and quick implicit bias tests at a staff or department meeting. 
• Familiarize yourself and your colleagues with facets of reproductive justice—the human right to have children, to not have children, and to nurture children in a safe and healthy environment—and incorporate these values in your practice. Request trainings in reproductive justice from community groups like Sister Song. 
• Sign up for updates for state and national bills addressing health inequity and access to reproductive health services. Show your support by calling your congress-people, testifying, or donating to a cause that promotes these bills.  You can stay up to date on national issues with government affairs newsletters from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Sign up here. 
• Continue the conversation and re-evaluate your personal and institution’s efforts to combat racism and social and reproductive injustices. 

Provide access to high-quality reproductive health care

• Ask your patients what barriers they faced to come to your clinic and receive the care they needed. Consider incorporating the following screening tools regarding social determinants of health: PRAPARE screening tool, AAFP screening tool. 
• Promote access to insurance and support programs, including nutrition, exercise and wellness, and safe home and school environments. Look up resources available to your patients by their zip codes using AAFP’s Neighborhood Navigator. 
• Help patients access their medications at affordable prices in their neighborhoods by using free apps. Use the GoodRx app to identify discounts for prescriptions at various pharmacies, and search the Bedsider app to find out how your patients can get their birth control for free and delivered to their homes.
• Expand access to language services for patients who do not speak English as their first language. If working in a resource-limited setting, use the Google Translate app. Print out these free handouts for birth control fact sheets in different languages. 
• Establish standardized protocols for common treatment paradigms to reduce the influence of bias in clinical scenarios. For example, institute a protocol for managing postoperative pain to ensure equal access to treatment. 
• Institute the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) patient safety bundle on the Reduction of Peripartum Racial/Ethnic Disparities. Learn more about AIM’s maternal safety and quality improvement initiative to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality here. 

Support a diverse workforce

• Designate and/or hire a Diversity and Inclusion Officer at your institution to ensure that hiring practices actively achieve a diverse workforce and that employees feel supported in the work environment. Consider coalition-building between hospitals, like the UPHS-CHOP Alliance of Minority Physicians.
• Recruit diverse applicants by advertising positions to groups that focus on the advancement of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Engage with your local chapter of the National Medical Association and American Medical Women’s Association. 
• Have a system in place for anonymous reporting of incidents involving bias or discrimination against staff, and develop a protocol to ensure action is taken in case of such incidents.
• Institute a recurring conference or Grand Rounds across disciplines to discuss the impacts of bias and discrimination on patients and providers at your institution. View examples of these conferences here.
• Ensure invited speakers and other educational opportunities are comprised of diverse representation.
• Create a work environment with safe spaces for the discussion of racism, discrimination, and bias.