Surgery

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

On average, physicians reported in the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023 that they worked 50 hours per week. Five specialties, including critical care, cardiology, and general surgery reported working 55 or more hours weekly.

But there’s a small segment of physicians that has bucked the norm. They’ve scaled back their hours to part time, clocking in only 25-30 hours a week.

In 2011, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that part-time physician careers were rising. At the time, part-time doctors made up 21% of the physician workforce, up from 13% in 2005.

In a more recent survey from the California Health Care Foundation, only 12% of California physicians said they devoted 20-29 hours a week to patient care. 

Amy Knoup, a senior recruitment adviser with Provider Solutions & Development), has been helping doctors find jobs for over a decade, and she’s noticed a trend.

“Not only are more physicians seeking part-time roles than they were 10 years ago, but more large health care systems are also offering part time or per diem as well,” said Ms. Knoup.
 

Who’s working part time, and why?

Ten years ago, the fastest growing segment of part-timers were men nearing retirement and early- to mid-career women.

Pediatricians led the part-time pack in 2002, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics study. At the time, 15% of pediatricians reported their hours as part time. However, the numbers may have increased over the years. For example, a 2021 study by the department of pediatrics, Boston Medical Center, and Boston University found that almost 30% of graduating pediatricians sought part-time work at the end of their training. 

At PS&D, Ms. Knoup said she has noticed a trend toward part-timers among primary care, behavioral health, and outpatient specialties such as endocrinology. “We’re also seeing it with the inpatient side in roles that are more shift based like hospitalists, radiologists, and critical care and ER doctors.”

Another trend Ms. Knoup has noticed is with early-career doctors. “They have a different mindset,” she said. “Younger generations are acutely aware of burnout. They may have experienced it in residency or during the pandemic. They’ve had a taste of that and don’t want to go down that road again, so they’re seeking part-time roles. It’s an intentional choice.” 

Tracey O’Connell, MD, a radiologist, always knew that she wanted to work part time. “I had a baby as a resident, and I was pregnant with my second child as a fellow,” she said. “I was already feeling overwhelmed with medical training and having a family.”

Dr. O’Connell worked in private practice for 16 years on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, with no nights or weekends. 

“I still found it completely overwhelming,” she said. “Even though I had more days not working than working, I felt like the demands of medical life had advanced faster than human beings could adapt, and I still feel that way.”

Today she runs a part-time teleradiology practice from home but spends more time on her second career as a life coach. “Most of my clients are physicians looking for more fulfillment and sustainable ways of practicing medicine while maintaining their own identity as human beings, not just the all-consuming identity of ‘doctor,’ ” she said. 

On the other end of the career spectrum is Lois Goodman, MD, an ob.gyn. in her late 70s. After 42 years in a group practice, she started her solo practice at 72, seeing patients 3 days per week. “I’m just happy to be working. That’s a tremendous payoff for me. I need to keep working for my mental health.”
 

How does part-time work affect physician shortages and care delivery?

Reducing clinical effort is one of the strategies physicians use to scale down overload. Still, it’s not viable as a long-term solution, said Christine Sinsky, MD, AMA’s vice president of professional satisfaction and a nationally regarded researcher on physician burnout.

“If all the physicians in a community went from working 100% FTE clinical to 50% FTE clinical, then the people in that community would have half the access to care that they had,” said Dr. Sinsky. “There’s less capacity in the system to care for patients.”

Some could argue, then, that part-time physician work may contribute to physician shortage predictions. An Association of American Medical Colleges report estimates there will be a shortage of 37,800 to 124,000 physicians by 2034.

But physicians working part-time express a contrasting point of view. “I don’t believe that part-time workers are responsible for the health care shortage but rather, a great solution,” said Dr. O’Connell. “Because in order to continue working for a long time rather than quitting when the demands exceed human capacity, working part time is a great compromise to offer a life of more sustainable well-being and longevity as a physician, and still live a wholehearted life.”
 

Pros and cons of being a part-time physician

Pros

Less burnout: The American Medical Association has tracked burnout rates for 22 years. By the end of 2021, nearly 63% of physicians reported burnout symptoms, compared with 38% the year before. Going part time appears to reduce burnout, suggests a study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Better work-life balance: Rachel Miller, MD, an ob.gyn., worked 60-70 hours weekly for 9 years. In 2022, she went to work as an OB hospitalist for a health care system that welcomes part-time clinicians. Since then, she has achieved a better work-life balance, putting in 26-28 hours a week. Dr. Miller now spends more time with her kids and in her additional role as an executive coach to leaders in the medical field. 

More focus: “When I’m at work, I’m 100% mentally in and focused,” said Dr. Miller. “My interactions with patients are different because I’m not burned out. My demeanor and my willingness to connect are stronger.”

Better health: Mehmet Cilingiroglu, MD, with CardioSolution, traded full-time work for part time when health issues and a kidney transplant sidelined his 30-year career in 2018. “Despite my significant health issues, I’ve been able to continue working at a pace that suits me rather than having to retire,” he said. “Part-time physicians can still enjoy patient care, research, innovation, education, and training while balancing that with other areas of life.” 

Errin Weisman, a DO who gave up full-time work in 2016, said cutting back makes her feel healthier, happier, and more energized. “Part-time work helps me to bring my A game each day I work and deliver the best care.” She’s also a life coach encouraging other physicians to find balance in their professional and personal lives.
 

Cons

Cut in pay: Obviously, the No. 1 con is you’ll make less working part time, so adjusting to a salary decrease can be a huge issue, especially if you don’t have other sources of income. Physicians paying off student loans, those caring for children or elderly parents, or those in their prime earning years needing to save for retirement may not be able to go part time.

Diminished career: The chance for promotions or being well known in your field can be diminished, as well as a loss of proficiency if you’re only performing surgery or procedures part time. In some specialties, working part time and not keeping up with (or being able to practice) newer technology developments can harm your career or reputation in the long run.

Missing out: While working part time has many benefits, physicians also experience a wide range of drawbacks. Dr. Goodman, for example, said she misses delivering babies and doing surgeries. Dr. Miller said she gave up some aspects of her specialty, like performing hysterectomies, participating in complex cases, and no longer having an office like she did as a full-time ob.gyn.

Loss of fellowship: Dr. O’Connell said she missed the camaraderie and sense of belonging when she scaled back her hours. “I felt like a fish out of water, that my values didn’t align with the group’s values,” she said. This led to self-doubt, frustrated colleagues, and a reduction in benefits.

Lost esteem: Dr. O’Connell also felt she was expected to work overtime without additional pay and was no longer eligible for bonuses. “I was treated as a team player when I was needed, but not when it came to perks and benefits and insider privilege,” she said. There may be a loss of esteem among colleagues and supervisors.

Overcoming stigma: Because part-time physician work is still not prevalent among colleagues, some may resist the idea, have less respect for it, perceive it as not being serious about your career as a physician, or associate it with being lazy or entitled.

Summing it up

Every physician must weigh the value and drawbacks of part-time work, but the more physicians who go this route, the more part-time medicine gains traction and the more physicians can learn about its values versus its drawbacks.

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

On average, physicians reported in the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023 that they worked 50 hours per week. Five specialties, including critical care, cardiology, and general surgery reported working 55 or more hours weekly.

But there’s a small segment of physicians that has bucked the norm. They’ve scaled back their hours to part time, clocking in only 25-30 hours a week.

In 2011, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that part-time physician careers were rising. At the time, part-time doctors made up 21% of the physician workforce, up from 13% in 2005.

In a more recent survey from the California Health Care Foundation, only 12% of California physicians said they devoted 20-29 hours a week to patient care. 

Amy Knoup, a senior recruitment adviser with Provider Solutions & Development), has been helping doctors find jobs for over a decade, and she’s noticed a trend.

“Not only are more physicians seeking part-time roles than they were 10 years ago, but more large health care systems are also offering part time or per diem as well,” said Ms. Knoup.
 

Who’s working part time, and why?

Ten years ago, the fastest growing segment of part-timers were men nearing retirement and early- to mid-career women.

Pediatricians led the part-time pack in 2002, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics study. At the time, 15% of pediatricians reported their hours as part time. However, the numbers may have increased over the years. For example, a 2021 study by the department of pediatrics, Boston Medical Center, and Boston University found that almost 30% of graduating pediatricians sought part-time work at the end of their training. 

At PS&D, Ms. Knoup said she has noticed a trend toward part-timers among primary care, behavioral health, and outpatient specialties such as endocrinology. “We’re also seeing it with the inpatient side in roles that are more shift based like hospitalists, radiologists, and critical care and ER doctors.”

Another trend Ms. Knoup has noticed is with early-career doctors. “They have a different mindset,” she said. “Younger generations are acutely aware of burnout. They may have experienced it in residency or during the pandemic. They’ve had a taste of that and don’t want to go down that road again, so they’re seeking part-time roles. It’s an intentional choice.” 

Tracey O’Connell, MD, a radiologist, always knew that she wanted to work part time. “I had a baby as a resident, and I was pregnant with my second child as a fellow,” she said. “I was already feeling overwhelmed with medical training and having a family.”

Dr. O’Connell worked in private practice for 16 years on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, with no nights or weekends. 

“I still found it completely overwhelming,” she said. “Even though I had more days not working than working, I felt like the demands of medical life had advanced faster than human beings could adapt, and I still feel that way.”

Today she runs a part-time teleradiology practice from home but spends more time on her second career as a life coach. “Most of my clients are physicians looking for more fulfillment and sustainable ways of practicing medicine while maintaining their own identity as human beings, not just the all-consuming identity of ‘doctor,’ ” she said. 

On the other end of the career spectrum is Lois Goodman, MD, an ob.gyn. in her late 70s. After 42 years in a group practice, she started her solo practice at 72, seeing patients 3 days per week. “I’m just happy to be working. That’s a tremendous payoff for me. I need to keep working for my mental health.”
 

How does part-time work affect physician shortages and care delivery?

Reducing clinical effort is one of the strategies physicians use to scale down overload. Still, it’s not viable as a long-term solution, said Christine Sinsky, MD, AMA’s vice president of professional satisfaction and a nationally regarded researcher on physician burnout.

“If all the physicians in a community went from working 100% FTE clinical to 50% FTE clinical, then the people in that community would have half the access to care that they had,” said Dr. Sinsky. “There’s less capacity in the system to care for patients.”

Some could argue, then, that part-time physician work may contribute to physician shortage predictions. An Association of American Medical Colleges report estimates there will be a shortage of 37,800 to 124,000 physicians by 2034.

But physicians working part-time express a contrasting point of view. “I don’t believe that part-time workers are responsible for the health care shortage but rather, a great solution,” said Dr. O’Connell. “Because in order to continue working for a long time rather than quitting when the demands exceed human capacity, working part time is a great compromise to offer a life of more sustainable well-being and longevity as a physician, and still live a wholehearted life.”
 

Pros and cons of being a part-time physician

Pros

Less burnout: The American Medical Association has tracked burnout rates for 22 years. By the end of 2021, nearly 63% of physicians reported burnout symptoms, compared with 38% the year before. Going part time appears to reduce burnout, suggests a study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Better work-life balance: Rachel Miller, MD, an ob.gyn., worked 60-70 hours weekly for 9 years. In 2022, she went to work as an OB hospitalist for a health care system that welcomes part-time clinicians. Since then, she has achieved a better work-life balance, putting in 26-28 hours a week. Dr. Miller now spends more time with her kids and in her additional role as an executive coach to leaders in the medical field. 

More focus: “When I’m at work, I’m 100% mentally in and focused,” said Dr. Miller. “My interactions with patients are different because I’m not burned out. My demeanor and my willingness to connect are stronger.”

Better health: Mehmet Cilingiroglu, MD, with CardioSolution, traded full-time work for part time when health issues and a kidney transplant sidelined his 30-year career in 2018. “Despite my significant health issues, I’ve been able to continue working at a pace that suits me rather than having to retire,” he said. “Part-time physicians can still enjoy patient care, research, innovation, education, and training while balancing that with other areas of life.” 

Errin Weisman, a DO who gave up full-time work in 2016, said cutting back makes her feel healthier, happier, and more energized. “Part-time work helps me to bring my A game each day I work and deliver the best care.” She’s also a life coach encouraging other physicians to find balance in their professional and personal lives.
 

Cons

Cut in pay: Obviously, the No. 1 con is you’ll make less working part time, so adjusting to a salary decrease can be a huge issue, especially if you don’t have other sources of income. Physicians paying off student loans, those caring for children or elderly parents, or those in their prime earning years needing to save for retirement may not be able to go part time.

Diminished career: The chance for promotions or being well known in your field can be diminished, as well as a loss of proficiency if you’re only performing surgery or procedures part time. In some specialties, working part time and not keeping up with (or being able to practice) newer technology developments can harm your career or reputation in the long run.

Missing out: While working part time has many benefits, physicians also experience a wide range of drawbacks. Dr. Goodman, for example, said she misses delivering babies and doing surgeries. Dr. Miller said she gave up some aspects of her specialty, like performing hysterectomies, participating in complex cases, and no longer having an office like she did as a full-time ob.gyn.

Loss of fellowship: Dr. O’Connell said she missed the camaraderie and sense of belonging when she scaled back her hours. “I felt like a fish out of water, that my values didn’t align with the group’s values,” she said. This led to self-doubt, frustrated colleagues, and a reduction in benefits.

Lost esteem: Dr. O’Connell also felt she was expected to work overtime without additional pay and was no longer eligible for bonuses. “I was treated as a team player when I was needed, but not when it came to perks and benefits and insider privilege,” she said. There may be a loss of esteem among colleagues and supervisors.

Overcoming stigma: Because part-time physician work is still not prevalent among colleagues, some may resist the idea, have less respect for it, perceive it as not being serious about your career as a physician, or associate it with being lazy or entitled.

Summing it up

Every physician must weigh the value and drawbacks of part-time work, but the more physicians who go this route, the more part-time medicine gains traction and the more physicians can learn about its values versus its drawbacks.

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

On average, physicians reported in the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023 that they worked 50 hours per week. Five specialties, including critical care, cardiology, and general surgery reported working 55 or more hours weekly.

But there’s a small segment of physicians that has bucked the norm. They’ve scaled back their hours to part time, clocking in only 25-30 hours a week.

In 2011, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that part-time physician careers were rising. At the time, part-time doctors made up 21% of the physician workforce, up from 13% in 2005.

In a more recent survey from the California Health Care Foundation, only 12% of California physicians said they devoted 20-29 hours a week to patient care. 

Amy Knoup, a senior recruitment adviser with Provider Solutions & Development), has been helping doctors find jobs for over a decade, and she’s noticed a trend.

“Not only are more physicians seeking part-time roles than they were 10 years ago, but more large health care systems are also offering part time or per diem as well,” said Ms. Knoup.
 

Who’s working part time, and why?

Ten years ago, the fastest growing segment of part-timers were men nearing retirement and early- to mid-career women.

Pediatricians led the part-time pack in 2002, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics study. At the time, 15% of pediatricians reported their hours as part time. However, the numbers may have increased over the years. For example, a 2021 study by the department of pediatrics, Boston Medical Center, and Boston University found that almost 30% of graduating pediatricians sought part-time work at the end of their training. 

At PS&D, Ms. Knoup said she has noticed a trend toward part-timers among primary care, behavioral health, and outpatient specialties such as endocrinology. “We’re also seeing it with the inpatient side in roles that are more shift based like hospitalists, radiologists, and critical care and ER doctors.”

Another trend Ms. Knoup has noticed is with early-career doctors. “They have a different mindset,” she said. “Younger generations are acutely aware of burnout. They may have experienced it in residency or during the pandemic. They’ve had a taste of that and don’t want to go down that road again, so they’re seeking part-time roles. It’s an intentional choice.” 

Tracey O’Connell, MD, a radiologist, always knew that she wanted to work part time. “I had a baby as a resident, and I was pregnant with my second child as a fellow,” she said. “I was already feeling overwhelmed with medical training and having a family.”

Dr. O’Connell worked in private practice for 16 years on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, with no nights or weekends. 

“I still found it completely overwhelming,” she said. “Even though I had more days not working than working, I felt like the demands of medical life had advanced faster than human beings could adapt, and I still feel that way.”

Today she runs a part-time teleradiology practice from home but spends more time on her second career as a life coach. “Most of my clients are physicians looking for more fulfillment and sustainable ways of practicing medicine while maintaining their own identity as human beings, not just the all-consuming identity of ‘doctor,’ ” she said. 

On the other end of the career spectrum is Lois Goodman, MD, an ob.gyn. in her late 70s. After 42 years in a group practice, she started her solo practice at 72, seeing patients 3 days per week. “I’m just happy to be working. That’s a tremendous payoff for me. I need to keep working for my mental health.”
 

How does part-time work affect physician shortages and care delivery?

Reducing clinical effort is one of the strategies physicians use to scale down overload. Still, it’s not viable as a long-term solution, said Christine Sinsky, MD, AMA’s vice president of professional satisfaction and a nationally regarded researcher on physician burnout.

“If all the physicians in a community went from working 100% FTE clinical to 50% FTE clinical, then the people in that community would have half the access to care that they had,” said Dr. Sinsky. “There’s less capacity in the system to care for patients.”

Some could argue, then, that part-time physician work may contribute to physician shortage predictions. An Association of American Medical Colleges report estimates there will be a shortage of 37,800 to 124,000 physicians by 2034.

But physicians working part-time express a contrasting point of view. “I don’t believe that part-time workers are responsible for the health care shortage but rather, a great solution,” said Dr. O’Connell. “Because in order to continue working for a long time rather than quitting when the demands exceed human capacity, working part time is a great compromise to offer a life of more sustainable well-being and longevity as a physician, and still live a wholehearted life.”
 

Pros and cons of being a part-time physician

Pros

Less burnout: The American Medical Association has tracked burnout rates for 22 years. By the end of 2021, nearly 63% of physicians reported burnout symptoms, compared with 38% the year before. Going part time appears to reduce burnout, suggests a study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Better work-life balance: Rachel Miller, MD, an ob.gyn., worked 60-70 hours weekly for 9 years. In 2022, she went to work as an OB hospitalist for a health care system that welcomes part-time clinicians. Since then, she has achieved a better work-life balance, putting in 26-28 hours a week. Dr. Miller now spends more time with her kids and in her additional role as an executive coach to leaders in the medical field. 

More focus: “When I’m at work, I’m 100% mentally in and focused,” said Dr. Miller. “My interactions with patients are different because I’m not burned out. My demeanor and my willingness to connect are stronger.”

Better health: Mehmet Cilingiroglu, MD, with CardioSolution, traded full-time work for part time when health issues and a kidney transplant sidelined his 30-year career in 2018. “Despite my significant health issues, I’ve been able to continue working at a pace that suits me rather than having to retire,” he said. “Part-time physicians can still enjoy patient care, research, innovation, education, and training while balancing that with other areas of life.” 

Errin Weisman, a DO who gave up full-time work in 2016, said cutting back makes her feel healthier, happier, and more energized. “Part-time work helps me to bring my A game each day I work and deliver the best care.” She’s also a life coach encouraging other physicians to find balance in their professional and personal lives.
 

Cons

Cut in pay: Obviously, the No. 1 con is you’ll make less working part time, so adjusting to a salary decrease can be a huge issue, especially if you don’t have other sources of income. Physicians paying off student loans, those caring for children or elderly parents, or those in their prime earning years needing to save for retirement may not be able to go part time.

Diminished career: The chance for promotions or being well known in your field can be diminished, as well as a loss of proficiency if you’re only performing surgery or procedures part time. In some specialties, working part time and not keeping up with (or being able to practice) newer technology developments can harm your career or reputation in the long run.

Missing out: While working part time has many benefits, physicians also experience a wide range of drawbacks. Dr. Goodman, for example, said she misses delivering babies and doing surgeries. Dr. Miller said she gave up some aspects of her specialty, like performing hysterectomies, participating in complex cases, and no longer having an office like she did as a full-time ob.gyn.

Loss of fellowship: Dr. O’Connell said she missed the camaraderie and sense of belonging when she scaled back her hours. “I felt like a fish out of water, that my values didn’t align with the group’s values,” she said. This led to self-doubt, frustrated colleagues, and a reduction in benefits.

Lost esteem: Dr. O’Connell also felt she was expected to work overtime without additional pay and was no longer eligible for bonuses. “I was treated as a team player when I was needed, but not when it came to perks and benefits and insider privilege,” she said. There may be a loss of esteem among colleagues and supervisors.

Overcoming stigma: Because part-time physician work is still not prevalent among colleagues, some may resist the idea, have less respect for it, perceive it as not being serious about your career as a physician, or associate it with being lazy or entitled.

Summing it up

Every physician must weigh the value and drawbacks of part-time work, but the more physicians who go this route, the more part-time medicine gains traction and the more physicians can learn about its values versus its drawbacks.

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

WASHINGTON – Congenital diaphragmatic hernia affects many areas of pediatrics. In a trio of posters presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia addressed initial ventilation and infant outcomes in the neonatal intensive care unit, prenatal brain immaturity and later cognitive development, and antibiotic use.

Initial ventilation mode shows little impact on NICU outcomes

In one study, K. Taylor Wild, MD, and colleagues investigated whether high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) as an initial mode of ventilation in the delivery room improved gas exchange and neonatal ICU (NICU) outcomes in infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), compared with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). In 2019, HFOV became standard practice at CHOP.

The researchers reviewed data on infants with severe CDH who were born at CHOP between 2014 and 2022. Of these, 75 were placed on HFOV and 114 on CMV. The mean gestational age at birth in both groups was approximately 38 weeks, and the mean birth weight was approximately 3 kg.

Compared with CMV, use of HFOV in the delivery room was associated with significantly higher pH (7.05 vs. 7.16, P = .03) and significantly lower CO₂ (85.2 vs. 64.5, P = .005). However, after adjusting for CDH severity, no significant differences appeared in length of stay and overall survival to discharge. The higher rates of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in the HFOV group, compared with the CMV group (48% vs. 29.9%), may reflect more severe disease, the researchers noted.
 

Prenatal brain immaturity associates with developmental delay

In a second study, Sandy Johng, MD, and colleagues found a significant association between prenatal brain immaturity in babies with CDH and developmental scores at age 12 months and older. The researchers reviewed data from a single-center patient registry for 48 infants for whom prenatal neuroimaging results were available. Based on the imaging, a fetal Total Maturation Score (fTMS) was generated and used as a measure of prenatal brain immaturity.

Results from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-III (BSID-III) – a composite of cognitive, motor, and language scores – were available for 26 neonates at ages 12 months and under as well as at 12 months and older.

In a linear regression model, the researchers found a significant association between difference in fTMS and BSID-III composite language scores in infants 12 months and older. After adjusting for ECMO treatment, an increase in fTMS of one unit was associated with a 6.5-point increase in language scores at age 12 months and older (P < .01). No significant differences were observed between fTMS difference and language scores in infants under 12 months, or in cognitive or motor scores at any age, the researchers noted. The findings were limited by the small sample size, but the study is the first to show an association between prenatal imaging and neurodevelopmental outcomes for infants with CDH. Results suggest that the risk for neurodevelopmental impairment in this population may start in utero, the researchers concluded.
 

Antibiotic use stays stable

In a third study, Sabrina Flohr, MPH, and colleagues reviewed antibiotic use among infants with CDH who are at increased risk for infection. In many cases, distinguishing between infection and inherent clinical illness is challenging and may lead to unnecessarily high rates of antibiotic use, the researchers noted.

They reviewed data from 381 infants with CDH born at CHOP between January 2013 and November 2022 who were treated and survived in the NICU. Overall, 97.1% of the newborns received antibiotics for a median of 13 days. Nearly two-thirds (63.5%) received antibiotics in the first 72 hours, and 98.1% received them after 72 hours. Ampicillin and gentamicin were the antibiotics used most often in the first 72 hours (approximately 50% for both). After 72 hours, the most commonly used antibiotics were cefazolin (91.6%), vancomycin (67.7%), and cefepime (65.7%).

The results show that antibiotic use among newborns with CDH did not change significantly over time, and the choices of later antibiotics likely reflect perioperative prophylaxis and broad-spectrum treatment, the researchers noted.
 

Studies show larger trends

“These are three interesting studies regarding congenital diaphragmatic hernia from a center that does a high volume of repairs,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

“Each individual case can be consuming, but it is important to look for an aggregate of cases to see the larger trends in practices and outcomes,” said Dr. Joos, who was not involved in any of the studies.

The findings of the ventilation study surprised Dr. Joos. “Although high-frequency oscillatory ventilation improves initial gas exchange in the delivery room, compared with conventional mechanical ventilation, it was not associated with any larger NICU outcome,” he said. “This surprised me because my intuition would be that the HFOV would lead to less barotrauma and therefore better outcomes with the underformed lungs associated with this disorder.”

The imaging study demonstrates the need for more research on the association between CDH and neurologic outcomes, said Dr. Joos.

“Prenatal neuroimaging that shows delayed maturation with congenital diaphragmatic hernia correlates with lower language scores in early childhood, and suggests that this may be a predictor of neurologic outcome independent of the postnatal course,” he said.

Data from the antibiotics study reflect current trends, said Dr. Joos. “Antibiotics use is extremely common during the postnatal course of CDH and surgical repair,” he said. “The choice of antibiotics mirrors what we see in other neonatal conditions with regard to treatment for possible early neonatal sepsis, postsurgical prophylaxis, and later broad-spectrum empiric coverage,” he noted.

“I look forward to more studies to come out of large-volume centers like CHOP or aggregated results from many centers to help figure out best practices for this rare but very complicated and often devastating malformation,” he said.

The three posters received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

WASHINGTON – Congenital diaphragmatic hernia affects many areas of pediatrics. In a trio of posters presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia addressed initial ventilation and infant outcomes in the neonatal intensive care unit, prenatal brain immaturity and later cognitive development, and antibiotic use.

Initial ventilation mode shows little impact on NICU outcomes

In one study, K. Taylor Wild, MD, and colleagues investigated whether high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) as an initial mode of ventilation in the delivery room improved gas exchange and neonatal ICU (NICU) outcomes in infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), compared with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). In 2019, HFOV became standard practice at CHOP.

The researchers reviewed data on infants with severe CDH who were born at CHOP between 2014 and 2022. Of these, 75 were placed on HFOV and 114 on CMV. The mean gestational age at birth in both groups was approximately 38 weeks, and the mean birth weight was approximately 3 kg.

Compared with CMV, use of HFOV in the delivery room was associated with significantly higher pH (7.05 vs. 7.16, P = .03) and significantly lower CO₂ (85.2 vs. 64.5, P = .005). However, after adjusting for CDH severity, no significant differences appeared in length of stay and overall survival to discharge. The higher rates of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in the HFOV group, compared with the CMV group (48% vs. 29.9%), may reflect more severe disease, the researchers noted.
 

Prenatal brain immaturity associates with developmental delay

In a second study, Sandy Johng, MD, and colleagues found a significant association between prenatal brain immaturity in babies with CDH and developmental scores at age 12 months and older. The researchers reviewed data from a single-center patient registry for 48 infants for whom prenatal neuroimaging results were available. Based on the imaging, a fetal Total Maturation Score (fTMS) was generated and used as a measure of prenatal brain immaturity.

Results from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-III (BSID-III) – a composite of cognitive, motor, and language scores – were available for 26 neonates at ages 12 months and under as well as at 12 months and older.

In a linear regression model, the researchers found a significant association between difference in fTMS and BSID-III composite language scores in infants 12 months and older. After adjusting for ECMO treatment, an increase in fTMS of one unit was associated with a 6.5-point increase in language scores at age 12 months and older (P < .01). No significant differences were observed between fTMS difference and language scores in infants under 12 months, or in cognitive or motor scores at any age, the researchers noted. The findings were limited by the small sample size, but the study is the first to show an association between prenatal imaging and neurodevelopmental outcomes for infants with CDH. Results suggest that the risk for neurodevelopmental impairment in this population may start in utero, the researchers concluded.
 

Antibiotic use stays stable

In a third study, Sabrina Flohr, MPH, and colleagues reviewed antibiotic use among infants with CDH who are at increased risk for infection. In many cases, distinguishing between infection and inherent clinical illness is challenging and may lead to unnecessarily high rates of antibiotic use, the researchers noted.

They reviewed data from 381 infants with CDH born at CHOP between January 2013 and November 2022 who were treated and survived in the NICU. Overall, 97.1% of the newborns received antibiotics for a median of 13 days. Nearly two-thirds (63.5%) received antibiotics in the first 72 hours, and 98.1% received them after 72 hours. Ampicillin and gentamicin were the antibiotics used most often in the first 72 hours (approximately 50% for both). After 72 hours, the most commonly used antibiotics were cefazolin (91.6%), vancomycin (67.7%), and cefepime (65.7%).

The results show that antibiotic use among newborns with CDH did not change significantly over time, and the choices of later antibiotics likely reflect perioperative prophylaxis and broad-spectrum treatment, the researchers noted.
 

Studies show larger trends

“These are three interesting studies regarding congenital diaphragmatic hernia from a center that does a high volume of repairs,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

“Each individual case can be consuming, but it is important to look for an aggregate of cases to see the larger trends in practices and outcomes,” said Dr. Joos, who was not involved in any of the studies.

The findings of the ventilation study surprised Dr. Joos. “Although high-frequency oscillatory ventilation improves initial gas exchange in the delivery room, compared with conventional mechanical ventilation, it was not associated with any larger NICU outcome,” he said. “This surprised me because my intuition would be that the HFOV would lead to less barotrauma and therefore better outcomes with the underformed lungs associated with this disorder.”

The imaging study demonstrates the need for more research on the association between CDH and neurologic outcomes, said Dr. Joos.

“Prenatal neuroimaging that shows delayed maturation with congenital diaphragmatic hernia correlates with lower language scores in early childhood, and suggests that this may be a predictor of neurologic outcome independent of the postnatal course,” he said.

Data from the antibiotics study reflect current trends, said Dr. Joos. “Antibiotics use is extremely common during the postnatal course of CDH and surgical repair,” he said. “The choice of antibiotics mirrors what we see in other neonatal conditions with regard to treatment for possible early neonatal sepsis, postsurgical prophylaxis, and later broad-spectrum empiric coverage,” he noted.

“I look forward to more studies to come out of large-volume centers like CHOP or aggregated results from many centers to help figure out best practices for this rare but very complicated and often devastating malformation,” he said.

The three posters received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

WASHINGTON – Congenital diaphragmatic hernia affects many areas of pediatrics. In a trio of posters presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting, researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia addressed initial ventilation and infant outcomes in the neonatal intensive care unit, prenatal brain immaturity and later cognitive development, and antibiotic use.

Initial ventilation mode shows little impact on NICU outcomes

In one study, K. Taylor Wild, MD, and colleagues investigated whether high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) as an initial mode of ventilation in the delivery room improved gas exchange and neonatal ICU (NICU) outcomes in infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), compared with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). In 2019, HFOV became standard practice at CHOP.

The researchers reviewed data on infants with severe CDH who were born at CHOP between 2014 and 2022. Of these, 75 were placed on HFOV and 114 on CMV. The mean gestational age at birth in both groups was approximately 38 weeks, and the mean birth weight was approximately 3 kg.

Compared with CMV, use of HFOV in the delivery room was associated with significantly higher pH (7.05 vs. 7.16, P = .03) and significantly lower CO₂ (85.2 vs. 64.5, P = .005). However, after adjusting for CDH severity, no significant differences appeared in length of stay and overall survival to discharge. The higher rates of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in the HFOV group, compared with the CMV group (48% vs. 29.9%), may reflect more severe disease, the researchers noted.
 

Prenatal brain immaturity associates with developmental delay

In a second study, Sandy Johng, MD, and colleagues found a significant association between prenatal brain immaturity in babies with CDH and developmental scores at age 12 months and older. The researchers reviewed data from a single-center patient registry for 48 infants for whom prenatal neuroimaging results were available. Based on the imaging, a fetal Total Maturation Score (fTMS) was generated and used as a measure of prenatal brain immaturity.

Results from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-III (BSID-III) – a composite of cognitive, motor, and language scores – were available for 26 neonates at ages 12 months and under as well as at 12 months and older.

In a linear regression model, the researchers found a significant association between difference in fTMS and BSID-III composite language scores in infants 12 months and older. After adjusting for ECMO treatment, an increase in fTMS of one unit was associated with a 6.5-point increase in language scores at age 12 months and older (P < .01). No significant differences were observed between fTMS difference and language scores in infants under 12 months, or in cognitive or motor scores at any age, the researchers noted. The findings were limited by the small sample size, but the study is the first to show an association between prenatal imaging and neurodevelopmental outcomes for infants with CDH. Results suggest that the risk for neurodevelopmental impairment in this population may start in utero, the researchers concluded.
 

Antibiotic use stays stable

In a third study, Sabrina Flohr, MPH, and colleagues reviewed antibiotic use among infants with CDH who are at increased risk for infection. In many cases, distinguishing between infection and inherent clinical illness is challenging and may lead to unnecessarily high rates of antibiotic use, the researchers noted.

They reviewed data from 381 infants with CDH born at CHOP between January 2013 and November 2022 who were treated and survived in the NICU. Overall, 97.1% of the newborns received antibiotics for a median of 13 days. Nearly two-thirds (63.5%) received antibiotics in the first 72 hours, and 98.1% received them after 72 hours. Ampicillin and gentamicin were the antibiotics used most often in the first 72 hours (approximately 50% for both). After 72 hours, the most commonly used antibiotics were cefazolin (91.6%), vancomycin (67.7%), and cefepime (65.7%).

The results show that antibiotic use among newborns with CDH did not change significantly over time, and the choices of later antibiotics likely reflect perioperative prophylaxis and broad-spectrum treatment, the researchers noted.
 

Studies show larger trends

“These are three interesting studies regarding congenital diaphragmatic hernia from a center that does a high volume of repairs,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

“Each individual case can be consuming, but it is important to look for an aggregate of cases to see the larger trends in practices and outcomes,” said Dr. Joos, who was not involved in any of the studies.

The findings of the ventilation study surprised Dr. Joos. “Although high-frequency oscillatory ventilation improves initial gas exchange in the delivery room, compared with conventional mechanical ventilation, it was not associated with any larger NICU outcome,” he said. “This surprised me because my intuition would be that the HFOV would lead to less barotrauma and therefore better outcomes with the underformed lungs associated with this disorder.”

The imaging study demonstrates the need for more research on the association between CDH and neurologic outcomes, said Dr. Joos.

“Prenatal neuroimaging that shows delayed maturation with congenital diaphragmatic hernia correlates with lower language scores in early childhood, and suggests that this may be a predictor of neurologic outcome independent of the postnatal course,” he said.

Data from the antibiotics study reflect current trends, said Dr. Joos. “Antibiotics use is extremely common during the postnatal course of CDH and surgical repair,” he said. “The choice of antibiotics mirrors what we see in other neonatal conditions with regard to treatment for possible early neonatal sepsis, postsurgical prophylaxis, and later broad-spectrum empiric coverage,” he noted.

“I look forward to more studies to come out of large-volume centers like CHOP or aggregated results from many centers to help figure out best practices for this rare but very complicated and often devastating malformation,” he said.

The three posters received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

PHOENIX – While the use of lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary indications dates back more than 50 years, a large body of scientific evidence has since accumulated for conditions ranging from genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), lichen sclerosus, urinary incontinence, and vulvovaginal laxity.

“Even a cursory review of PubMed today yields over 100,000 results” on this topic, Macrene R. Alexiades, MD, PhD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Add to that radiofrequency and various diagnoses, the number of publications has skyrocketed, particularly over the last 10 years.”

What has been missing from this hot research topic all these years, she continued, is that no one has distilled this pile of data into a practical guide for office-based clinicians who use lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary conditions – until now. Working with experts in gynecology and urogynecology, Dr. Alexiades spearheaded a 2-year-long effort to assemble a document on optimal protocols and best practices for genitourinary application of lasers and energy-based devices. The document, published soon after the ASLMS meeting in Lasers in Medicine and Surgery, includes a table that lists the current Food and Drug Administration approval status of devices in genitourinary applications, as well as individual sections dedicated to fractional lasers, radiofrequency (RF) devices, and high-intensity focused electromagnetic technology. It concludes with a section on the current status of clearances and future pathways.

“The work we did was exhaustive,” said Dr. Alexiades, who is also founder and director of Dermatology & Laser Surgery Center of New York. “We went through all the clinical trial data and compiled the parameters that, as a consensus, we agree are best practices for each technology for which we had rigorous published data.”

The document contains a brief background on the history of the devices used for genitourinary issues and it addresses core topics for each technology, such as conditions treated, contraindications, preoperative physical assessment and preparation, perioperative protocols, and postoperative care.

Contraindications to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices are numerous and include use of an intrauterine device, active urinary tract or genital infection, vaginal bleeding, current pregnancy, active or recent malignancy, having an electrical implant anywhere in the body, significant concurrent illness, and an anticoagulative or thromboembolic condition or taking anticoagulant medications 1 week prior to the procedure. Another condition to screen for is advanced prolapse, which was considered a contraindication in all clinical trials, she added. “It’s important that you’re able to do the speculum exam and stage the prolapse” so that a patient with this contraindication is not treated.

Dr. Alexiades shared the following highlights from the document’s section related to the use of fractional CO₂ lasers:

Preoperative management. Schedule the treatment one week after the patient’s menstrual period. Patients should avoid blood thinners for 7 days and avoid intercourse the night before the procedure. Reschedule in the case of fever, chills, or vaginal bleeding or discharge.

Preoperative physical exam and testing. A normal speculum exam and a recent negative PAP smear are required. For those of child-bearing potential, a pregnancy test is warranted. Obtain written and verbal consent, including discussion of all treatment options, risks, and benefits. No topical or local anesthesia is necessary internally. “Externally, we sometimes apply topical lidocaine gel, but I have found that’s not necessary in most cases,” Dr. Alexiades said. “The treatment is so quick.”

Peri-operative management. In general, device settings are provided by the manufacturer. “For most of the studies that had successful outcomes and no adverse events, researchers adhered to the mild or moderate settings on the technology,” she said. Energy settings were between 15 and 30 watts, delivered at a laser fluence of about 250-300 mJ/cm² with a spacing of microbeams 1 mm apart. Typically, three treatments are done at 1-month intervals and maintenance treatments are recommended at 6 and 12 months based on duration of the outcomes.

Vulvovaginal postoperative management. A 3-day recovery time is recommended with avoidance of intercourse during this period, because “re-epithelialization is usually complete in 3 days, so we want to give the opportunity for the lining to heal prior to introducing any friction, Dr. Alexiades said.” Rarely, spotting or discharge may occur and there should be no discomfort. “Any severe discomfort or burning may potentially signify infection and should prompt evaluation and possibly vaginal cultures. The patient can shower, but we recommend avoiding seated baths to decrease any introduction of infectious agents.”

Patients should be followed up monthly until three treatments are completed, and a maintenance treatment is considered appropriate between 6 and 12 months. “I do recommend doing a 1-month follow-up following the final treatment, unless it’s a patient who has already had a series of three treatments and is coming in for maintenance,” she said.

In a study from her own practice, Dr. Alexiades evaluated a series of three fractional CO₂ laser treatments to the vulva and vagina with a 1-year follow-up in postmenopausal patients. She used the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) to assess changes in vaginal elasticity, fluid volume, vaginal pH, epithelial integrity, and moisture. She and her colleagues discovered that there was improvement in every VHI category after treatment and during the follow-up interval up to 6 months.

“Between 6 and 12 months, we started to see a return a bit toward baseline on all of these parameters,” she said. “The serendipitous discovery that I made during the course of that study was that early intervention improves outcomes. I observed that the younger, most recently postmenopausal cohort seemed to attain normal or near normal VHI quicker than the more extended postmenopausal cohorts.”

In an editorial published in 2020, Dr. Alexiades reviewed the effects of fractional CO₂ laser treatment of vulvar skin on vaginal pH and referred to a study she conducted that found that the mean baseline pH pretreatment was 6.32 in the cohort of postmenopausal patients, and was reduced after 3 treatments. “Postmenopausally, the normal acidic pH becomes alkaline,” she said. But she did not expect to see an additional reduction in pH following the treatment out to 6 months. “This indicates that, whatever the wound healing and other restorative effects of these devices are, they seem to continue out to 6 months, at which point it turns around and moves toward baseline [levels].”

Dr. Alexiades highlighted two published meta-analyses of studies related to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices. One included 59 studies of 3,609 women treated for vaginal rejuvenation using either radiofrequency or fractional ablative laser therapy. The studies reported improvements in symptoms of GSM/VVA and sexual function, high patient satisfaction, with minor adverse events, including treatment-associated vaginal swelling or vaginal discharge.

“Further research needs to be completed to determine which specific pathologies can be treated, if maintenance treatment is necessary, and long-term safety concerns,” the authors concluded.

In another review, researchers analyzed 64 studies related to vaginal laser therapy for GSM. Of these, 47 were before and after studies without a control group, 10 were controlled intervention studies, and 7 were observational cohort and cross-sectional studies.

Vaginal laser treatment “seems to improve scores on the visual analogue scale, Female Sexual Function Index, and the Vaginal Health Index over the short term,” the authors wrote. “Safety outcomes are underreported and short term. Further well-designed clinical trials with sham-laser control groups and evaluating objective variables are needed to provide the best evidence on efficacy.”

“Lasers and energy-based devices are now considered alternative therapeutic modalities for genitourinary conditions,” Dr. Alexiades concluded. “The shortcomings in the literature with respect to lasers and device treatments demonstrate the need for the consensus on best practices and protocols.”

During a separate presentation at the meeting, Michael Gold, MD, highlighted data from Grand View Research, a market research database, which estimated that the global women’s health and wellness market is valued at more than $31 billion globally and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 4.8% from 2022 to 2030.

“Sales of women’s health energy-based devices continue to grow as new technologies are developed,” said Dr. Gold, a Nashville, Tenn.–based dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. “Evolving societal norms have made discussions about feminine health issues acceptable. Suffering in silence is no longer necessary or advocated.”

Dr. Alexiades disclosed that she has conducted research for Candela Lasers, Lumenis, Allergan/AbbVie, InMode, and Endymed. She is also the founder and CEO of Macrene Actives. Dr. Gold disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator and a speaker for Joylux, InMode, and Alma Lasers.
 

PHOENIX – While the use of lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary indications dates back more than 50 years, a large body of scientific evidence has since accumulated for conditions ranging from genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), lichen sclerosus, urinary incontinence, and vulvovaginal laxity.

“Even a cursory review of PubMed today yields over 100,000 results” on this topic, Macrene R. Alexiades, MD, PhD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Add to that radiofrequency and various diagnoses, the number of publications has skyrocketed, particularly over the last 10 years.”

What has been missing from this hot research topic all these years, she continued, is that no one has distilled this pile of data into a practical guide for office-based clinicians who use lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary conditions – until now. Working with experts in gynecology and urogynecology, Dr. Alexiades spearheaded a 2-year-long effort to assemble a document on optimal protocols and best practices for genitourinary application of lasers and energy-based devices. The document, published soon after the ASLMS meeting in Lasers in Medicine and Surgery, includes a table that lists the current Food and Drug Administration approval status of devices in genitourinary applications, as well as individual sections dedicated to fractional lasers, radiofrequency (RF) devices, and high-intensity focused electromagnetic technology. It concludes with a section on the current status of clearances and future pathways.

“The work we did was exhaustive,” said Dr. Alexiades, who is also founder and director of Dermatology & Laser Surgery Center of New York. “We went through all the clinical trial data and compiled the parameters that, as a consensus, we agree are best practices for each technology for which we had rigorous published data.”

The document contains a brief background on the history of the devices used for genitourinary issues and it addresses core topics for each technology, such as conditions treated, contraindications, preoperative physical assessment and preparation, perioperative protocols, and postoperative care.

Contraindications to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices are numerous and include use of an intrauterine device, active urinary tract or genital infection, vaginal bleeding, current pregnancy, active or recent malignancy, having an electrical implant anywhere in the body, significant concurrent illness, and an anticoagulative or thromboembolic condition or taking anticoagulant medications 1 week prior to the procedure. Another condition to screen for is advanced prolapse, which was considered a contraindication in all clinical trials, she added. “It’s important that you’re able to do the speculum exam and stage the prolapse” so that a patient with this contraindication is not treated.

Dr. Alexiades shared the following highlights from the document’s section related to the use of fractional CO₂ lasers:

Preoperative management. Schedule the treatment one week after the patient’s menstrual period. Patients should avoid blood thinners for 7 days and avoid intercourse the night before the procedure. Reschedule in the case of fever, chills, or vaginal bleeding or discharge.

Preoperative physical exam and testing. A normal speculum exam and a recent negative PAP smear are required. For those of child-bearing potential, a pregnancy test is warranted. Obtain written and verbal consent, including discussion of all treatment options, risks, and benefits. No topical or local anesthesia is necessary internally. “Externally, we sometimes apply topical lidocaine gel, but I have found that’s not necessary in most cases,” Dr. Alexiades said. “The treatment is so quick.”

Peri-operative management. In general, device settings are provided by the manufacturer. “For most of the studies that had successful outcomes and no adverse events, researchers adhered to the mild or moderate settings on the technology,” she said. Energy settings were between 15 and 30 watts, delivered at a laser fluence of about 250-300 mJ/cm² with a spacing of microbeams 1 mm apart. Typically, three treatments are done at 1-month intervals and maintenance treatments are recommended at 6 and 12 months based on duration of the outcomes.

Vulvovaginal postoperative management. A 3-day recovery time is recommended with avoidance of intercourse during this period, because “re-epithelialization is usually complete in 3 days, so we want to give the opportunity for the lining to heal prior to introducing any friction, Dr. Alexiades said.” Rarely, spotting or discharge may occur and there should be no discomfort. “Any severe discomfort or burning may potentially signify infection and should prompt evaluation and possibly vaginal cultures. The patient can shower, but we recommend avoiding seated baths to decrease any introduction of infectious agents.”

Patients should be followed up monthly until three treatments are completed, and a maintenance treatment is considered appropriate between 6 and 12 months. “I do recommend doing a 1-month follow-up following the final treatment, unless it’s a patient who has already had a series of three treatments and is coming in for maintenance,” she said.

In a study from her own practice, Dr. Alexiades evaluated a series of three fractional CO₂ laser treatments to the vulva and vagina with a 1-year follow-up in postmenopausal patients. She used the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) to assess changes in vaginal elasticity, fluid volume, vaginal pH, epithelial integrity, and moisture. She and her colleagues discovered that there was improvement in every VHI category after treatment and during the follow-up interval up to 6 months.

“Between 6 and 12 months, we started to see a return a bit toward baseline on all of these parameters,” she said. “The serendipitous discovery that I made during the course of that study was that early intervention improves outcomes. I observed that the younger, most recently postmenopausal cohort seemed to attain normal or near normal VHI quicker than the more extended postmenopausal cohorts.”

In an editorial published in 2020, Dr. Alexiades reviewed the effects of fractional CO₂ laser treatment of vulvar skin on vaginal pH and referred to a study she conducted that found that the mean baseline pH pretreatment was 6.32 in the cohort of postmenopausal patients, and was reduced after 3 treatments. “Postmenopausally, the normal acidic pH becomes alkaline,” she said. But she did not expect to see an additional reduction in pH following the treatment out to 6 months. “This indicates that, whatever the wound healing and other restorative effects of these devices are, they seem to continue out to 6 months, at which point it turns around and moves toward baseline [levels].”

Dr. Alexiades highlighted two published meta-analyses of studies related to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices. One included 59 studies of 3,609 women treated for vaginal rejuvenation using either radiofrequency or fractional ablative laser therapy. The studies reported improvements in symptoms of GSM/VVA and sexual function, high patient satisfaction, with minor adverse events, including treatment-associated vaginal swelling or vaginal discharge.

“Further research needs to be completed to determine which specific pathologies can be treated, if maintenance treatment is necessary, and long-term safety concerns,” the authors concluded.

In another review, researchers analyzed 64 studies related to vaginal laser therapy for GSM. Of these, 47 were before and after studies without a control group, 10 were controlled intervention studies, and 7 were observational cohort and cross-sectional studies.

Vaginal laser treatment “seems to improve scores on the visual analogue scale, Female Sexual Function Index, and the Vaginal Health Index over the short term,” the authors wrote. “Safety outcomes are underreported and short term. Further well-designed clinical trials with sham-laser control groups and evaluating objective variables are needed to provide the best evidence on efficacy.”

“Lasers and energy-based devices are now considered alternative therapeutic modalities for genitourinary conditions,” Dr. Alexiades concluded. “The shortcomings in the literature with respect to lasers and device treatments demonstrate the need for the consensus on best practices and protocols.”

During a separate presentation at the meeting, Michael Gold, MD, highlighted data from Grand View Research, a market research database, which estimated that the global women’s health and wellness market is valued at more than $31 billion globally and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 4.8% from 2022 to 2030.

“Sales of women’s health energy-based devices continue to grow as new technologies are developed,” said Dr. Gold, a Nashville, Tenn.–based dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. “Evolving societal norms have made discussions about feminine health issues acceptable. Suffering in silence is no longer necessary or advocated.”

Dr. Alexiades disclosed that she has conducted research for Candela Lasers, Lumenis, Allergan/AbbVie, InMode, and Endymed. She is also the founder and CEO of Macrene Actives. Dr. Gold disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator and a speaker for Joylux, InMode, and Alma Lasers.
 

PHOENIX – While the use of lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary indications dates back more than 50 years, a large body of scientific evidence has since accumulated for conditions ranging from genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), lichen sclerosus, urinary incontinence, and vulvovaginal laxity.

“Even a cursory review of PubMed today yields over 100,000 results” on this topic, Macrene R. Alexiades, MD, PhD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Add to that radiofrequency and various diagnoses, the number of publications has skyrocketed, particularly over the last 10 years.”

What has been missing from this hot research topic all these years, she continued, is that no one has distilled this pile of data into a practical guide for office-based clinicians who use lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary conditions – until now. Working with experts in gynecology and urogynecology, Dr. Alexiades spearheaded a 2-year-long effort to assemble a document on optimal protocols and best practices for genitourinary application of lasers and energy-based devices. The document, published soon after the ASLMS meeting in Lasers in Medicine and Surgery, includes a table that lists the current Food and Drug Administration approval status of devices in genitourinary applications, as well as individual sections dedicated to fractional lasers, radiofrequency (RF) devices, and high-intensity focused electromagnetic technology. It concludes with a section on the current status of clearances and future pathways.

“The work we did was exhaustive,” said Dr. Alexiades, who is also founder and director of Dermatology & Laser Surgery Center of New York. “We went through all the clinical trial data and compiled the parameters that, as a consensus, we agree are best practices for each technology for which we had rigorous published data.”

The document contains a brief background on the history of the devices used for genitourinary issues and it addresses core topics for each technology, such as conditions treated, contraindications, preoperative physical assessment and preparation, perioperative protocols, and postoperative care.

Contraindications to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices are numerous and include use of an intrauterine device, active urinary tract or genital infection, vaginal bleeding, current pregnancy, active or recent malignancy, having an electrical implant anywhere in the body, significant concurrent illness, and an anticoagulative or thromboembolic condition or taking anticoagulant medications 1 week prior to the procedure. Another condition to screen for is advanced prolapse, which was considered a contraindication in all clinical trials, she added. “It’s important that you’re able to do the speculum exam and stage the prolapse” so that a patient with this contraindication is not treated.

Dr. Alexiades shared the following highlights from the document’s section related to the use of fractional CO₂ lasers:

Preoperative management. Schedule the treatment one week after the patient’s menstrual period. Patients should avoid blood thinners for 7 days and avoid intercourse the night before the procedure. Reschedule in the case of fever, chills, or vaginal bleeding or discharge.

Preoperative physical exam and testing. A normal speculum exam and a recent negative PAP smear are required. For those of child-bearing potential, a pregnancy test is warranted. Obtain written and verbal consent, including discussion of all treatment options, risks, and benefits. No topical or local anesthesia is necessary internally. “Externally, we sometimes apply topical lidocaine gel, but I have found that’s not necessary in most cases,” Dr. Alexiades said. “The treatment is so quick.”

Peri-operative management. In general, device settings are provided by the manufacturer. “For most of the studies that had successful outcomes and no adverse events, researchers adhered to the mild or moderate settings on the technology,” she said. Energy settings were between 15 and 30 watts, delivered at a laser fluence of about 250-300 mJ/cm² with a spacing of microbeams 1 mm apart. Typically, three treatments are done at 1-month intervals and maintenance treatments are recommended at 6 and 12 months based on duration of the outcomes.

Vulvovaginal postoperative management. A 3-day recovery time is recommended with avoidance of intercourse during this period, because “re-epithelialization is usually complete in 3 days, so we want to give the opportunity for the lining to heal prior to introducing any friction, Dr. Alexiades said.” Rarely, spotting or discharge may occur and there should be no discomfort. “Any severe discomfort or burning may potentially signify infection and should prompt evaluation and possibly vaginal cultures. The patient can shower, but we recommend avoiding seated baths to decrease any introduction of infectious agents.”

Patients should be followed up monthly until three treatments are completed, and a maintenance treatment is considered appropriate between 6 and 12 months. “I do recommend doing a 1-month follow-up following the final treatment, unless it’s a patient who has already had a series of three treatments and is coming in for maintenance,” she said.

In a study from her own practice, Dr. Alexiades evaluated a series of three fractional CO₂ laser treatments to the vulva and vagina with a 1-year follow-up in postmenopausal patients. She used the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) to assess changes in vaginal elasticity, fluid volume, vaginal pH, epithelial integrity, and moisture. She and her colleagues discovered that there was improvement in every VHI category after treatment and during the follow-up interval up to 6 months.

“Between 6 and 12 months, we started to see a return a bit toward baseline on all of these parameters,” she said. “The serendipitous discovery that I made during the course of that study was that early intervention improves outcomes. I observed that the younger, most recently postmenopausal cohort seemed to attain normal or near normal VHI quicker than the more extended postmenopausal cohorts.”

In an editorial published in 2020, Dr. Alexiades reviewed the effects of fractional CO₂ laser treatment of vulvar skin on vaginal pH and referred to a study she conducted that found that the mean baseline pH pretreatment was 6.32 in the cohort of postmenopausal patients, and was reduced after 3 treatments. “Postmenopausally, the normal acidic pH becomes alkaline,” she said. But she did not expect to see an additional reduction in pH following the treatment out to 6 months. “This indicates that, whatever the wound healing and other restorative effects of these devices are, they seem to continue out to 6 months, at which point it turns around and moves toward baseline [levels].”

Dr. Alexiades highlighted two published meta-analyses of studies related to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices. One included 59 studies of 3,609 women treated for vaginal rejuvenation using either radiofrequency or fractional ablative laser therapy. The studies reported improvements in symptoms of GSM/VVA and sexual function, high patient satisfaction, with minor adverse events, including treatment-associated vaginal swelling or vaginal discharge.

“Further research needs to be completed to determine which specific pathologies can be treated, if maintenance treatment is necessary, and long-term safety concerns,” the authors concluded.

In another review, researchers analyzed 64 studies related to vaginal laser therapy for GSM. Of these, 47 were before and after studies without a control group, 10 were controlled intervention studies, and 7 were observational cohort and cross-sectional studies.

Vaginal laser treatment “seems to improve scores on the visual analogue scale, Female Sexual Function Index, and the Vaginal Health Index over the short term,” the authors wrote. “Safety outcomes are underreported and short term. Further well-designed clinical trials with sham-laser control groups and evaluating objective variables are needed to provide the best evidence on efficacy.”

“Lasers and energy-based devices are now considered alternative therapeutic modalities for genitourinary conditions,” Dr. Alexiades concluded. “The shortcomings in the literature with respect to lasers and device treatments demonstrate the need for the consensus on best practices and protocols.”

During a separate presentation at the meeting, Michael Gold, MD, highlighted data from Grand View Research, a market research database, which estimated that the global women’s health and wellness market is valued at more than $31 billion globally and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 4.8% from 2022 to 2030.

“Sales of women’s health energy-based devices continue to grow as new technologies are developed,” said Dr. Gold, a Nashville, Tenn.–based dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. “Evolving societal norms have made discussions about feminine health issues acceptable. Suffering in silence is no longer necessary or advocated.”

Dr. Alexiades disclosed that she has conducted research for Candela Lasers, Lumenis, Allergan/AbbVie, InMode, and Endymed. She is also the founder and CEO of Macrene Actives. Dr. Gold disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator and a speaker for Joylux, InMode, and Alma Lasers.
 

CHICAGO – Wireless tibial neurostimulation devices that are implanted to treat urinary incontinence appear to be effective at reducing the urge to void, according to new findings presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

As many as half of women in the United States aged 60 and older will experience urinary incontinence. Of those, roughly one in four experience urge urinary incontinence, marked by a sudden need to void that cannot be fully suppressed.

Researchers studied the benefits of the RENOVA iStim (BlueWind Medical) implantable tibial neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder in the OASIS trial.

Study investigator Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, MMHC, professor of urology and surgery and associate surgeon-in-chief at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the first-line treatment of urinary incontinence is lifestyle changes to retrain the bladder or physical therapy, including pelvic floor and Kegel exercises, per AUA guidelines. He said the success rate is about 30% and is not sustained. Second-line treatments include medications, which most (60%) patients stop taking by 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the 151 women who received the device responded to therapy at 1 year, and 84.6% of the patients showed improvement, according to Dr. Dmochowski.

The participants (mean age, 58.8) demonstrated a mean baseline of 4.8 urge incidents per day (standard deviation, 2.9) and 10 voids/day (SD, 3.3). No device or procedure-related serious adverse events were reported at 12 months. Half of the women no longer had symptoms on three consecutive days, Dr. Dmochowski said.

Because urge urinary incontinence is a chronic condition, “treatment with the BlueWind System will be ongoing, with frequency determined based on the patient’s response,” Dr. Dmochowski said. “The patient is then empowered to control when and where they perform therapy.”

“The device is activated by the external wearable. It’s like an on-off switch. It has a receiver within it that basically has the capacity to be turned on and off by the wearable, which is the control device. The device is in an off-position until the wearable is applied,” he said.

He said the device should be worn twice a day for about 20 minutes, with many patients using it less.

Only one implanted tibial neuromodulation device has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration – eCOIN (Valencia Technologies). The RENOVA iStim is an investigational device under review by the FDA, Dr. Dmochowski said.

In installing the device, Dr. Dmochowski said urologists use a subfascial technique to enable direct visualization of the tibial nerve and suture fixation that increases the possibility of a predictable placement. Patients use an external wearable, which activates the implant, without concern for battery longevity or replacement.

“This therapy is not associated with any adverse effects and may be beneficial for patients who do not respond to other treatments for OAB such as medications or Botox,” said Carol E. Bretschneider, MD, a urogynecologic and pelvic surgeon at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, outside Chicago. “Neurostimulators can be a great advanced therapy option for patients who do not respond to more conservative treatments or cannot take or tolerate a medication.”

The devices do not stimulate or strengthen muscles but act by modulating the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor, added Dr. Bretschneider, who was not involved in the study.

Other treatments for urge incontinence can include acupuncture, or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, to target the posterior tibial nerve in the ankle, which shares the same nerve root that controls the bladder, according to Aron Liaw, MD, a reconstructive urologist and assistant professor of urology at Wayne State University in Detroit. This treatment has been shown to be at least as effective as available medications, but with fewer side effects, he said.

But regular stimulation is necessary to achieve and preserve efficacy, he said.

Dr. Liaw, who was not involved in the neuromodulation study, said the benefits of a device like Renova iStim are that implantation is relatively easy and can be performed in office settings, and patients can then treat themselves at home. However, because the new study did not compare the device to other treatments or a placebo device, its relative benefits are unclear, he said,

Other treatments for urge urinary incontinence, such as bladder Botox and sacral neuromodulation, also are minimally invasive and have proven benefit, “so a device like this could well be less effective with little other advantage,” he said.

“Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, but making big lifestyle changes is not always easy,” added Dr. Liaw. “I have found neuromodulation [to be] very effective, especially in conjunction with lifestyle changes.”

BlueWind Medical funds the OASIS trial. Dr. Dmochowski reported he received no grants nor has any relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bretschneider and Dr. Liaw report no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – Wireless tibial neurostimulation devices that are implanted to treat urinary incontinence appear to be effective at reducing the urge to void, according to new findings presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

As many as half of women in the United States aged 60 and older will experience urinary incontinence. Of those, roughly one in four experience urge urinary incontinence, marked by a sudden need to void that cannot be fully suppressed.

Researchers studied the benefits of the RENOVA iStim (BlueWind Medical) implantable tibial neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder in the OASIS trial.

Study investigator Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, MMHC, professor of urology and surgery and associate surgeon-in-chief at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the first-line treatment of urinary incontinence is lifestyle changes to retrain the bladder or physical therapy, including pelvic floor and Kegel exercises, per AUA guidelines. He said the success rate is about 30% and is not sustained. Second-line treatments include medications, which most (60%) patients stop taking by 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the 151 women who received the device responded to therapy at 1 year, and 84.6% of the patients showed improvement, according to Dr. Dmochowski.

The participants (mean age, 58.8) demonstrated a mean baseline of 4.8 urge incidents per day (standard deviation, 2.9) and 10 voids/day (SD, 3.3). No device or procedure-related serious adverse events were reported at 12 months. Half of the women no longer had symptoms on three consecutive days, Dr. Dmochowski said.

Because urge urinary incontinence is a chronic condition, “treatment with the BlueWind System will be ongoing, with frequency determined based on the patient’s response,” Dr. Dmochowski said. “The patient is then empowered to control when and where they perform therapy.”

“The device is activated by the external wearable. It’s like an on-off switch. It has a receiver within it that basically has the capacity to be turned on and off by the wearable, which is the control device. The device is in an off-position until the wearable is applied,” he said.

He said the device should be worn twice a day for about 20 minutes, with many patients using it less.

Only one implanted tibial neuromodulation device has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration – eCOIN (Valencia Technologies). The RENOVA iStim is an investigational device under review by the FDA, Dr. Dmochowski said.

In installing the device, Dr. Dmochowski said urologists use a subfascial technique to enable direct visualization of the tibial nerve and suture fixation that increases the possibility of a predictable placement. Patients use an external wearable, which activates the implant, without concern for battery longevity or replacement.

“This therapy is not associated with any adverse effects and may be beneficial for patients who do not respond to other treatments for OAB such as medications or Botox,” said Carol E. Bretschneider, MD, a urogynecologic and pelvic surgeon at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, outside Chicago. “Neurostimulators can be a great advanced therapy option for patients who do not respond to more conservative treatments or cannot take or tolerate a medication.”

The devices do not stimulate or strengthen muscles but act by modulating the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor, added Dr. Bretschneider, who was not involved in the study.

Other treatments for urge incontinence can include acupuncture, or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, to target the posterior tibial nerve in the ankle, which shares the same nerve root that controls the bladder, according to Aron Liaw, MD, a reconstructive urologist and assistant professor of urology at Wayne State University in Detroit. This treatment has been shown to be at least as effective as available medications, but with fewer side effects, he said.

But regular stimulation is necessary to achieve and preserve efficacy, he said.

Dr. Liaw, who was not involved in the neuromodulation study, said the benefits of a device like Renova iStim are that implantation is relatively easy and can be performed in office settings, and patients can then treat themselves at home. However, because the new study did not compare the device to other treatments or a placebo device, its relative benefits are unclear, he said,

Other treatments for urge urinary incontinence, such as bladder Botox and sacral neuromodulation, also are minimally invasive and have proven benefit, “so a device like this could well be less effective with little other advantage,” he said.

“Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, but making big lifestyle changes is not always easy,” added Dr. Liaw. “I have found neuromodulation [to be] very effective, especially in conjunction with lifestyle changes.”

BlueWind Medical funds the OASIS trial. Dr. Dmochowski reported he received no grants nor has any relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bretschneider and Dr. Liaw report no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – Wireless tibial neurostimulation devices that are implanted to treat urinary incontinence appear to be effective at reducing the urge to void, according to new findings presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

As many as half of women in the United States aged 60 and older will experience urinary incontinence. Of those, roughly one in four experience urge urinary incontinence, marked by a sudden need to void that cannot be fully suppressed.

Researchers studied the benefits of the RENOVA iStim (BlueWind Medical) implantable tibial neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder in the OASIS trial.

Study investigator Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, MMHC, professor of urology and surgery and associate surgeon-in-chief at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the first-line treatment of urinary incontinence is lifestyle changes to retrain the bladder or physical therapy, including pelvic floor and Kegel exercises, per AUA guidelines. He said the success rate is about 30% and is not sustained. Second-line treatments include medications, which most (60%) patients stop taking by 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the 151 women who received the device responded to therapy at 1 year, and 84.6% of the patients showed improvement, according to Dr. Dmochowski.

The participants (mean age, 58.8) demonstrated a mean baseline of 4.8 urge incidents per day (standard deviation, 2.9) and 10 voids/day (SD, 3.3). No device or procedure-related serious adverse events were reported at 12 months. Half of the women no longer had symptoms on three consecutive days, Dr. Dmochowski said.

Because urge urinary incontinence is a chronic condition, “treatment with the BlueWind System will be ongoing, with frequency determined based on the patient’s response,” Dr. Dmochowski said. “The patient is then empowered to control when and where they perform therapy.”

“The device is activated by the external wearable. It’s like an on-off switch. It has a receiver within it that basically has the capacity to be turned on and off by the wearable, which is the control device. The device is in an off-position until the wearable is applied,” he said.

He said the device should be worn twice a day for about 20 minutes, with many patients using it less.

Only one implanted tibial neuromodulation device has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration – eCOIN (Valencia Technologies). The RENOVA iStim is an investigational device under review by the FDA, Dr. Dmochowski said.

In installing the device, Dr. Dmochowski said urologists use a subfascial technique to enable direct visualization of the tibial nerve and suture fixation that increases the possibility of a predictable placement. Patients use an external wearable, which activates the implant, without concern for battery longevity or replacement.

“This therapy is not associated with any adverse effects and may be beneficial for patients who do not respond to other treatments for OAB such as medications or Botox,” said Carol E. Bretschneider, MD, a urogynecologic and pelvic surgeon at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, outside Chicago. “Neurostimulators can be a great advanced therapy option for patients who do not respond to more conservative treatments or cannot take or tolerate a medication.”

The devices do not stimulate or strengthen muscles but act by modulating the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor, added Dr. Bretschneider, who was not involved in the study.

Other treatments for urge incontinence can include acupuncture, or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, to target the posterior tibial nerve in the ankle, which shares the same nerve root that controls the bladder, according to Aron Liaw, MD, a reconstructive urologist and assistant professor of urology at Wayne State University in Detroit. This treatment has been shown to be at least as effective as available medications, but with fewer side effects, he said.

But regular stimulation is necessary to achieve and preserve efficacy, he said.

Dr. Liaw, who was not involved in the neuromodulation study, said the benefits of a device like Renova iStim are that implantation is relatively easy and can be performed in office settings, and patients can then treat themselves at home. However, because the new study did not compare the device to other treatments or a placebo device, its relative benefits are unclear, he said,

Other treatments for urge urinary incontinence, such as bladder Botox and sacral neuromodulation, also are minimally invasive and have proven benefit, “so a device like this could well be less effective with little other advantage,” he said.

“Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, but making big lifestyle changes is not always easy,” added Dr. Liaw. “I have found neuromodulation [to be] very effective, especially in conjunction with lifestyle changes.”

BlueWind Medical funds the OASIS trial. Dr. Dmochowski reported he received no grants nor has any relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bretschneider and Dr. Liaw report no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Prediction models that incorporate more than just treatment status could rank order heart transplant candidates by urgency more effectively than the current system, a modeling study suggests.

Since 2018, the U.S. heart transplant allocation system has ranked heart candidates according to six treatment-based “statuses” (up from three used previously), ignoring many objective patient characteristics, the authors write.

Their study showed no significant difference in survival between statuses four and six, and status five had lower survival than status four.

“We expected multivariable prediction models to outperform the six-status system when it comes to rank ordering patients by how likely they are to die on the wait list (medical urgency),” William F. Parker, MD, MS, PhD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization.

“However, we were surprised to see that the statuses were out of order,” he said. “Status five patients are more urgent than status three or status four patients,” mainly because most are in renal failure and listed for multiorgan transplantation with a kidney.

Objective physiologic measurements, such as glomerular filtration rate (GFR), had high variable importance, offering a minimally invasive measurement with predictive power in assessing medical urgency. Therefore, including GFR and other variables such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) could improve the accuracy of the allocation system in identifying the most medically urgent candidates, Dr. Parker and colleagues suggest.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.
 

‘Moderate ability’ to rank order

The investigators assessed the effectiveness of the standard six-status ranking system and several novel prediction models in identifying the most urgent heart transplant candidates. The primary outcome was death before receipt of a heart transplant.

The final data set contained 32,294 candidates (mean age, 53 years; 74%, men); 27,200 made up the prepolicy training set and 5,094 were included in the postpolicy test set.

The team evaluated the accuracy of the six-status system using Harrell’s C-index and log-rank tests of Kaplan-Meier estimated survival by status for candidates listed after the policy change (November 2018 to March 2020) in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data set.

They then developed Cox proportional hazards models and random survival forest models using prepolicy data (2010-2017). Predictor variables included age, diagnosis, laboratory measurements, hemodynamics, and supportive treatment at the time of listing.

They found that the six-status ranking at listing has had “moderate ability” to rank order candidates.

As Dr. Parker indicated, statuses four and six had no significant difference in survival, and status five had lower survival than status four.

The investigators’ multivariable prediction models derived with prepolicy data ranked candidates correctly more often than the six-status rankings. Objective physiologic measurements, such as GFR and ECMO, were identified as having significant importance with regard to ranking by urgency.

“The novel prediction models we developed … could be implemented by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) as allocation policy and would be better than the status quo,” Dr. Parker said. “However, I think we could do even better using the newer data collected after 2018.” 
 

Modifications underway

The OPTN Heart Transplantation Committee is currently working on developing a new framework for allocating deceased donor hearts called Continuous Distribution.

“The six-tiered system works well, and it better stratifies the most medically urgent candidates than the previous allocation framework,” the leadership of the United Network for Organ Sharing Heart Transplantation Committee, including Chair Richard C. Daly, MD, Mayo Clinic; Vice-Chair Jondavid Menteer, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; and former Chair Shelley Hall, MD, Baylor University Medical Center, told this news organization.

“That said, it is always appropriate to review and adjust variables that affect the medical urgency attribute for heart allocation.”

The new framework will change how patients are prioritized, they said. “Continuous distribution will consider all patient factors, including medical urgency, together to determine the order of an organ offer, and no single factor will decide an organ match.

“The goal is to increase fairness by moving to a points-based allocation framework that allows candidates to be compared using a single score composed of multiple factors.

“Furthermore,” they added, “continuous distribution provides a framework that will allow modifications of the criteria defining medical urgency (and other attributes of allocation) to a finer degree than the current policy. … Once continuous distribution is in place and the OPTN has policy monitoring data, the committee may consider and model different ways of defining medical urgency.”

Kiran K. Khush, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, coauthor of a related commentary, elaborated. “The composite allocation score (CAS) will consist of a ‘points-based system,’ in which candidates will be assigned points based on (1) medical urgency, (2) anticipated posttransplant survival, (3) candidate biology (eg., special characteristics that may result in higher prioritization, such as blood type O and allosensitization), (4) access (eg., prior living donor, pediatric patient), and (5) placement efficacy (travel, proximity).”

Candidates will be assigned points based on these categories, and will be rank ordered for each donor offer.

Dr. Khush and colleagues propose that a multivariable model – such as the ones described in the study – would be the best way to assign points for medical urgency.

“This system will be more equitable than the current system,” Dr. Khush said, “because it will better prioritize the sickest candidates while improving access for patients who are currently at a disadvantage [for example, blood O, highly sensitized patients], and will also remove artificial geographic boundaries [for example, the current 500-mile rule for heart allocation].”
 

Going further

Jesse D. Schold, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, raises concerns about other aspects of the heart allocation system in another related commentary.

“One big issue with our data in transplantation … is that, while it is very comprehensive for capturing transplant candidates and recipients, there is no data collection for patients and processes of care for patients prior to wait list placement,” he told this news organization. This phase of care is subject to wide variation in practice, he said, “and is likely as important as any to patients – the ability to be referred, evaluated, and placed on a waiting list.”

Report cards that measure quality of care after wait list placement ignore key phases prior to wait list placement, he said. “This may have the unintended consequences of limiting access to care and to the waiting list for patients perceived to be at higher risk, or the use of higher-risk donors, despite their potential survival advantage.

“In contrast,” he said, “quality report cards that incentivize treatment for all patients who may benefit would likely have a greater beneficial impact on patients with end-organ disease.”

There is also significant risk of underlying differences in patient populations between centers, despite the use of multivariable models, he added. This heterogeneity “may not be reflected accurately in the report cards [which] have significant impact for regulatory review, private payer contracting, and center reputation.”

Some of these concerns may be addressed in the new OPTN Modernization Initiative, according to David Bowman, a public affairs specialist at the Health Resources and Services Administration. One of the goals of the initiative “is to ensure that the OPTN Board of Directors is high functioning, has greater independence, and represents the diversity of communities served by the OPTN,” he told this news organization. “Strengthened governance will lead to effective policy development and implementation, and enhanced transparency and accountability of the process.”

Addressing another concern about the system, Savitri Fedson, MD, of the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wonders in a related editorial whether organ donors and recipients should know more about each other, and if so, could that reverse the ongoing downward trend in organ acceptance?

Although some organizations are in favor of sharing more information, Dr. Fedson notes that “less information may have the greater benefit.” She writes, “We might realize that the simplest approach is often the best: a fulsome thank you for the donor’s gift that is willingly given to a stranger without expectation of payment, and on the recipient side, the knowledge that an organ is of good quality.

“The transplant patient can be comforted with the understanding that the risk of disease transmission, while not zero, is low, and that their survival following acceptance of an organ is better than languishing on a waiting list.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parker, Dr. Khush, Dr. Schold, and Dr. Fedson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prediction models that incorporate more than just treatment status could rank order heart transplant candidates by urgency more effectively than the current system, a modeling study suggests.

Since 2018, the U.S. heart transplant allocation system has ranked heart candidates according to six treatment-based “statuses” (up from three used previously), ignoring many objective patient characteristics, the authors write.

Their study showed no significant difference in survival between statuses four and six, and status five had lower survival than status four.

“We expected multivariable prediction models to outperform the six-status system when it comes to rank ordering patients by how likely they are to die on the wait list (medical urgency),” William F. Parker, MD, MS, PhD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization.

“However, we were surprised to see that the statuses were out of order,” he said. “Status five patients are more urgent than status three or status four patients,” mainly because most are in renal failure and listed for multiorgan transplantation with a kidney.

Objective physiologic measurements, such as glomerular filtration rate (GFR), had high variable importance, offering a minimally invasive measurement with predictive power in assessing medical urgency. Therefore, including GFR and other variables such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) could improve the accuracy of the allocation system in identifying the most medically urgent candidates, Dr. Parker and colleagues suggest.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.
 

‘Moderate ability’ to rank order

The investigators assessed the effectiveness of the standard six-status ranking system and several novel prediction models in identifying the most urgent heart transplant candidates. The primary outcome was death before receipt of a heart transplant.

The final data set contained 32,294 candidates (mean age, 53 years; 74%, men); 27,200 made up the prepolicy training set and 5,094 were included in the postpolicy test set.

The team evaluated the accuracy of the six-status system using Harrell’s C-index and log-rank tests of Kaplan-Meier estimated survival by status for candidates listed after the policy change (November 2018 to March 2020) in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data set.

They then developed Cox proportional hazards models and random survival forest models using prepolicy data (2010-2017). Predictor variables included age, diagnosis, laboratory measurements, hemodynamics, and supportive treatment at the time of listing.

They found that the six-status ranking at listing has had “moderate ability” to rank order candidates.

As Dr. Parker indicated, statuses four and six had no significant difference in survival, and status five had lower survival than status four.

The investigators’ multivariable prediction models derived with prepolicy data ranked candidates correctly more often than the six-status rankings. Objective physiologic measurements, such as GFR and ECMO, were identified as having significant importance with regard to ranking by urgency.

“The novel prediction models we developed … could be implemented by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) as allocation policy and would be better than the status quo,” Dr. Parker said. “However, I think we could do even better using the newer data collected after 2018.” 
 

Modifications underway

The OPTN Heart Transplantation Committee is currently working on developing a new framework for allocating deceased donor hearts called Continuous Distribution.

“The six-tiered system works well, and it better stratifies the most medically urgent candidates than the previous allocation framework,” the leadership of the United Network for Organ Sharing Heart Transplantation Committee, including Chair Richard C. Daly, MD, Mayo Clinic; Vice-Chair Jondavid Menteer, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; and former Chair Shelley Hall, MD, Baylor University Medical Center, told this news organization.

“That said, it is always appropriate to review and adjust variables that affect the medical urgency attribute for heart allocation.”

The new framework will change how patients are prioritized, they said. “Continuous distribution will consider all patient factors, including medical urgency, together to determine the order of an organ offer, and no single factor will decide an organ match.

“The goal is to increase fairness by moving to a points-based allocation framework that allows candidates to be compared using a single score composed of multiple factors.

“Furthermore,” they added, “continuous distribution provides a framework that will allow modifications of the criteria defining medical urgency (and other attributes of allocation) to a finer degree than the current policy. … Once continuous distribution is in place and the OPTN has policy monitoring data, the committee may consider and model different ways of defining medical urgency.”

Kiran K. Khush, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, coauthor of a related commentary, elaborated. “The composite allocation score (CAS) will consist of a ‘points-based system,’ in which candidates will be assigned points based on (1) medical urgency, (2) anticipated posttransplant survival, (3) candidate biology (eg., special characteristics that may result in higher prioritization, such as blood type O and allosensitization), (4) access (eg., prior living donor, pediatric patient), and (5) placement efficacy (travel, proximity).”

Candidates will be assigned points based on these categories, and will be rank ordered for each donor offer.

Dr. Khush and colleagues propose that a multivariable model – such as the ones described in the study – would be the best way to assign points for medical urgency.

“This system will be more equitable than the current system,” Dr. Khush said, “because it will better prioritize the sickest candidates while improving access for patients who are currently at a disadvantage [for example, blood O, highly sensitized patients], and will also remove artificial geographic boundaries [for example, the current 500-mile rule for heart allocation].”
 

Going further

Jesse D. Schold, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, raises concerns about other aspects of the heart allocation system in another related commentary.

“One big issue with our data in transplantation … is that, while it is very comprehensive for capturing transplant candidates and recipients, there is no data collection for patients and processes of care for patients prior to wait list placement,” he told this news organization. This phase of care is subject to wide variation in practice, he said, “and is likely as important as any to patients – the ability to be referred, evaluated, and placed on a waiting list.”

Report cards that measure quality of care after wait list placement ignore key phases prior to wait list placement, he said. “This may have the unintended consequences of limiting access to care and to the waiting list for patients perceived to be at higher risk, or the use of higher-risk donors, despite their potential survival advantage.

“In contrast,” he said, “quality report cards that incentivize treatment for all patients who may benefit would likely have a greater beneficial impact on patients with end-organ disease.”

There is also significant risk of underlying differences in patient populations between centers, despite the use of multivariable models, he added. This heterogeneity “may not be reflected accurately in the report cards [which] have significant impact for regulatory review, private payer contracting, and center reputation.”

Some of these concerns may be addressed in the new OPTN Modernization Initiative, according to David Bowman, a public affairs specialist at the Health Resources and Services Administration. One of the goals of the initiative “is to ensure that the OPTN Board of Directors is high functioning, has greater independence, and represents the diversity of communities served by the OPTN,” he told this news organization. “Strengthened governance will lead to effective policy development and implementation, and enhanced transparency and accountability of the process.”

Addressing another concern about the system, Savitri Fedson, MD, of the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wonders in a related editorial whether organ donors and recipients should know more about each other, and if so, could that reverse the ongoing downward trend in organ acceptance?

Although some organizations are in favor of sharing more information, Dr. Fedson notes that “less information may have the greater benefit.” She writes, “We might realize that the simplest approach is often the best: a fulsome thank you for the donor’s gift that is willingly given to a stranger without expectation of payment, and on the recipient side, the knowledge that an organ is of good quality.

“The transplant patient can be comforted with the understanding that the risk of disease transmission, while not zero, is low, and that their survival following acceptance of an organ is better than languishing on a waiting list.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parker, Dr. Khush, Dr. Schold, and Dr. Fedson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prediction models that incorporate more than just treatment status could rank order heart transplant candidates by urgency more effectively than the current system, a modeling study suggests.

Since 2018, the U.S. heart transplant allocation system has ranked heart candidates according to six treatment-based “statuses” (up from three used previously), ignoring many objective patient characteristics, the authors write.

Their study showed no significant difference in survival between statuses four and six, and status five had lower survival than status four.

“We expected multivariable prediction models to outperform the six-status system when it comes to rank ordering patients by how likely they are to die on the wait list (medical urgency),” William F. Parker, MD, MS, PhD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization.

“However, we were surprised to see that the statuses were out of order,” he said. “Status five patients are more urgent than status three or status four patients,” mainly because most are in renal failure and listed for multiorgan transplantation with a kidney.

Objective physiologic measurements, such as glomerular filtration rate (GFR), had high variable importance, offering a minimally invasive measurement with predictive power in assessing medical urgency. Therefore, including GFR and other variables such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) could improve the accuracy of the allocation system in identifying the most medically urgent candidates, Dr. Parker and colleagues suggest.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.
 

‘Moderate ability’ to rank order

The investigators assessed the effectiveness of the standard six-status ranking system and several novel prediction models in identifying the most urgent heart transplant candidates. The primary outcome was death before receipt of a heart transplant.

The final data set contained 32,294 candidates (mean age, 53 years; 74%, men); 27,200 made up the prepolicy training set and 5,094 were included in the postpolicy test set.

The team evaluated the accuracy of the six-status system using Harrell’s C-index and log-rank tests of Kaplan-Meier estimated survival by status for candidates listed after the policy change (November 2018 to March 2020) in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data set.

They then developed Cox proportional hazards models and random survival forest models using prepolicy data (2010-2017). Predictor variables included age, diagnosis, laboratory measurements, hemodynamics, and supportive treatment at the time of listing.

They found that the six-status ranking at listing has had “moderate ability” to rank order candidates.

As Dr. Parker indicated, statuses four and six had no significant difference in survival, and status five had lower survival than status four.

The investigators’ multivariable prediction models derived with prepolicy data ranked candidates correctly more often than the six-status rankings. Objective physiologic measurements, such as GFR and ECMO, were identified as having significant importance with regard to ranking by urgency.

“The novel prediction models we developed … could be implemented by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) as allocation policy and would be better than the status quo,” Dr. Parker said. “However, I think we could do even better using the newer data collected after 2018.” 
 

Modifications underway

The OPTN Heart Transplantation Committee is currently working on developing a new framework for allocating deceased donor hearts called Continuous Distribution.

“The six-tiered system works well, and it better stratifies the most medically urgent candidates than the previous allocation framework,” the leadership of the United Network for Organ Sharing Heart Transplantation Committee, including Chair Richard C. Daly, MD, Mayo Clinic; Vice-Chair Jondavid Menteer, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; and former Chair Shelley Hall, MD, Baylor University Medical Center, told this news organization.

“That said, it is always appropriate to review and adjust variables that affect the medical urgency attribute for heart allocation.”

The new framework will change how patients are prioritized, they said. “Continuous distribution will consider all patient factors, including medical urgency, together to determine the order of an organ offer, and no single factor will decide an organ match.

“The goal is to increase fairness by moving to a points-based allocation framework that allows candidates to be compared using a single score composed of multiple factors.

“Furthermore,” they added, “continuous distribution provides a framework that will allow modifications of the criteria defining medical urgency (and other attributes of allocation) to a finer degree than the current policy. … Once continuous distribution is in place and the OPTN has policy monitoring data, the committee may consider and model different ways of defining medical urgency.”

Kiran K. Khush, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, coauthor of a related commentary, elaborated. “The composite allocation score (CAS) will consist of a ‘points-based system,’ in which candidates will be assigned points based on (1) medical urgency, (2) anticipated posttransplant survival, (3) candidate biology (eg., special characteristics that may result in higher prioritization, such as blood type O and allosensitization), (4) access (eg., prior living donor, pediatric patient), and (5) placement efficacy (travel, proximity).”

Candidates will be assigned points based on these categories, and will be rank ordered for each donor offer.

Dr. Khush and colleagues propose that a multivariable model – such as the ones described in the study – would be the best way to assign points for medical urgency.

“This system will be more equitable than the current system,” Dr. Khush said, “because it will better prioritize the sickest candidates while improving access for patients who are currently at a disadvantage [for example, blood O, highly sensitized patients], and will also remove artificial geographic boundaries [for example, the current 500-mile rule for heart allocation].”
 

Going further

Jesse D. Schold, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, raises concerns about other aspects of the heart allocation system in another related commentary.

“One big issue with our data in transplantation … is that, while it is very comprehensive for capturing transplant candidates and recipients, there is no data collection for patients and processes of care for patients prior to wait list placement,” he told this news organization. This phase of care is subject to wide variation in practice, he said, “and is likely as important as any to patients – the ability to be referred, evaluated, and placed on a waiting list.”

Report cards that measure quality of care after wait list placement ignore key phases prior to wait list placement, he said. “This may have the unintended consequences of limiting access to care and to the waiting list for patients perceived to be at higher risk, or the use of higher-risk donors, despite their potential survival advantage.

“In contrast,” he said, “quality report cards that incentivize treatment for all patients who may benefit would likely have a greater beneficial impact on patients with end-organ disease.”

There is also significant risk of underlying differences in patient populations between centers, despite the use of multivariable models, he added. This heterogeneity “may not be reflected accurately in the report cards [which] have significant impact for regulatory review, private payer contracting, and center reputation.”

Some of these concerns may be addressed in the new OPTN Modernization Initiative, according to David Bowman, a public affairs specialist at the Health Resources and Services Administration. One of the goals of the initiative “is to ensure that the OPTN Board of Directors is high functioning, has greater independence, and represents the diversity of communities served by the OPTN,” he told this news organization. “Strengthened governance will lead to effective policy development and implementation, and enhanced transparency and accountability of the process.”

Addressing another concern about the system, Savitri Fedson, MD, of the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wonders in a related editorial whether organ donors and recipients should know more about each other, and if so, could that reverse the ongoing downward trend in organ acceptance?

Although some organizations are in favor of sharing more information, Dr. Fedson notes that “less information may have the greater benefit.” She writes, “We might realize that the simplest approach is often the best: a fulsome thank you for the donor’s gift that is willingly given to a stranger without expectation of payment, and on the recipient side, the knowledge that an organ is of good quality.

“The transplant patient can be comforted with the understanding that the risk of disease transmission, while not zero, is low, and that their survival following acceptance of an organ is better than languishing on a waiting list.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Parker, Dr. Khush, Dr. Schold, and Dr. Fedson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

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

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

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

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

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

Women who underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with a benign hysterectomy had a higher 10-year mortality rate across all ages than those who had hysterectomies alone, based on data from more than 140,000 individuals.

Although bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) with hysterectomy has been shown to reduce the risk for ovarian cancer in women at increased risk, current guidelines are touting ovarian conservation, especially in premenopausal women, wrote Mathilde Gottschau, MD, of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, and colleagues. However, post-hysterectomy outcomes in women with and without BSO have not been well examined.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a nationwide registry of women in Denmark aged 20 years and older who underwent benign hysterectomies with BSO (22,974 women) and without BSO (120,011 women) between 1977 and 2017. The women were divided into subgroups based on age; those younger than 45 years were defined as premenopausal, those aged 45-54 years were defined as perimenopausal, those aged 55-64 were defined as early postmenopausal, and those aged 65 and older were defined as late menopausal.

The primary outcomes were hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, cancer incidence, and all-cause mortality over a median follow-up period of 22 years.

For women younger than 45 years, the 10-year cumulative risk for all cancer was lower with BSO than without, but the risk of overall cardiovascular disease was higher with BSO, with higher levels of ischemic heart disease and stroke, compared with women without BSO. The 10-year cumulative mortality was higher with BSO than without (2.16% vs. 1.94%).

For women aged 45-54 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO (risk difference, 0.73 percentage points) associated mainly with nonbreast cancer, and both 10-year and 20-year mortality were higher in those with BSO than those without.

For women aged 55-65 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO. Cumulative overall mortality was higher at 10 years for those with BSO, but lower at 20 years.

For women aged 65 years and older, both 10-year and 20-year cumulative overall cancer risk was higher with BSO than without (RD, 2.54 and 4.57 percentage points, respectively). Cumulative mortality was higher in the BSO group at 10 years, but lower at 20 years.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of age to determine menopausal status and the lack of genetic predisposition data, and the focus only on a relatively homogeneous population that may not be generalizable to other populations, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a nationwide registry and the long-term follow-up period, they said. The current study indicates that the health risks outweigh the potential benefits of BSO with benign hysterectomy for premenopausal women and supports the current guidelines for ovarian conservation in these women with low lifetime ovarian cancer risk, they said. For postmenopausal women, the data support a cautious approach to BSO given the lack of a clear survival benefit and cancer excess, they concluded.
 

Delayed diagnosis of ovarian cancers favors BSO

“The question of removing ovaries at the time of benign hysterectomy to prevent ovarian cancer in low-risk women has been widely debated,” which has contributed to the variation in incidence rates of unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy over time, wrote Elizabeth Casiano Evans, MD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and Deslyn T.G. Hobson, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, in an accompanying editorial.

Ovarian cancer often goes undiagnosed until an advanced stage, and BSO can significantly reduce risk in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, they noted.

For women without increased risk, those who are premenopausal may wish to preserve ovarian function, but women also may benefit from improvements in a range of menopause-related symptoms including vasomotor and urogenital symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and psychiatric and cognitive symptoms, they said.

“In addition, salpingectomy alone has a role in significantly reducing ovarian cancer incidence without compromising ovarian function because the fallopian tube has been found to be at the origin of many ovarian cancer cases,” they noted. In the current study, “the crude ovarian cancer risk was lower with BSO” across all age groups, the editorialists said.

The choice of whether to include BSO at the time of benign hysterectomy is complicated, with many factors to consider, the editorialists wrote, and the current study supports the need for informed, shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Society’s Scientific Committee and the Mermaid Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Women who underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with a benign hysterectomy had a higher 10-year mortality rate across all ages than those who had hysterectomies alone, based on data from more than 140,000 individuals.

Although bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) with hysterectomy has been shown to reduce the risk for ovarian cancer in women at increased risk, current guidelines are touting ovarian conservation, especially in premenopausal women, wrote Mathilde Gottschau, MD, of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, and colleagues. However, post-hysterectomy outcomes in women with and without BSO have not been well examined.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a nationwide registry of women in Denmark aged 20 years and older who underwent benign hysterectomies with BSO (22,974 women) and without BSO (120,011 women) between 1977 and 2017. The women were divided into subgroups based on age; those younger than 45 years were defined as premenopausal, those aged 45-54 years were defined as perimenopausal, those aged 55-64 were defined as early postmenopausal, and those aged 65 and older were defined as late menopausal.

The primary outcomes were hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, cancer incidence, and all-cause mortality over a median follow-up period of 22 years.

For women younger than 45 years, the 10-year cumulative risk for all cancer was lower with BSO than without, but the risk of overall cardiovascular disease was higher with BSO, with higher levels of ischemic heart disease and stroke, compared with women without BSO. The 10-year cumulative mortality was higher with BSO than without (2.16% vs. 1.94%).

For women aged 45-54 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO (risk difference, 0.73 percentage points) associated mainly with nonbreast cancer, and both 10-year and 20-year mortality were higher in those with BSO than those without.

For women aged 55-65 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO. Cumulative overall mortality was higher at 10 years for those with BSO, but lower at 20 years.

For women aged 65 years and older, both 10-year and 20-year cumulative overall cancer risk was higher with BSO than without (RD, 2.54 and 4.57 percentage points, respectively). Cumulative mortality was higher in the BSO group at 10 years, but lower at 20 years.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of age to determine menopausal status and the lack of genetic predisposition data, and the focus only on a relatively homogeneous population that may not be generalizable to other populations, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a nationwide registry and the long-term follow-up period, they said. The current study indicates that the health risks outweigh the potential benefits of BSO with benign hysterectomy for premenopausal women and supports the current guidelines for ovarian conservation in these women with low lifetime ovarian cancer risk, they said. For postmenopausal women, the data support a cautious approach to BSO given the lack of a clear survival benefit and cancer excess, they concluded.
 

Delayed diagnosis of ovarian cancers favors BSO

“The question of removing ovaries at the time of benign hysterectomy to prevent ovarian cancer in low-risk women has been widely debated,” which has contributed to the variation in incidence rates of unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy over time, wrote Elizabeth Casiano Evans, MD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and Deslyn T.G. Hobson, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, in an accompanying editorial.

Ovarian cancer often goes undiagnosed until an advanced stage, and BSO can significantly reduce risk in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, they noted.

For women without increased risk, those who are premenopausal may wish to preserve ovarian function, but women also may benefit from improvements in a range of menopause-related symptoms including vasomotor and urogenital symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and psychiatric and cognitive symptoms, they said.

“In addition, salpingectomy alone has a role in significantly reducing ovarian cancer incidence without compromising ovarian function because the fallopian tube has been found to be at the origin of many ovarian cancer cases,” they noted. In the current study, “the crude ovarian cancer risk was lower with BSO” across all age groups, the editorialists said.

The choice of whether to include BSO at the time of benign hysterectomy is complicated, with many factors to consider, the editorialists wrote, and the current study supports the need for informed, shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Society’s Scientific Committee and the Mermaid Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Women who underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with a benign hysterectomy had a higher 10-year mortality rate across all ages than those who had hysterectomies alone, based on data from more than 140,000 individuals.

Although bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) with hysterectomy has been shown to reduce the risk for ovarian cancer in women at increased risk, current guidelines are touting ovarian conservation, especially in premenopausal women, wrote Mathilde Gottschau, MD, of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, and colleagues. However, post-hysterectomy outcomes in women with and without BSO have not been well examined.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a nationwide registry of women in Denmark aged 20 years and older who underwent benign hysterectomies with BSO (22,974 women) and without BSO (120,011 women) between 1977 and 2017. The women were divided into subgroups based on age; those younger than 45 years were defined as premenopausal, those aged 45-54 years were defined as perimenopausal, those aged 55-64 were defined as early postmenopausal, and those aged 65 and older were defined as late menopausal.

The primary outcomes were hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, cancer incidence, and all-cause mortality over a median follow-up period of 22 years.

For women younger than 45 years, the 10-year cumulative risk for all cancer was lower with BSO than without, but the risk of overall cardiovascular disease was higher with BSO, with higher levels of ischemic heart disease and stroke, compared with women without BSO. The 10-year cumulative mortality was higher with BSO than without (2.16% vs. 1.94%).

For women aged 45-54 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO (risk difference, 0.73 percentage points) associated mainly with nonbreast cancer, and both 10-year and 20-year mortality were higher in those with BSO than those without.

For women aged 55-65 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO. Cumulative overall mortality was higher at 10 years for those with BSO, but lower at 20 years.

For women aged 65 years and older, both 10-year and 20-year cumulative overall cancer risk was higher with BSO than without (RD, 2.54 and 4.57 percentage points, respectively). Cumulative mortality was higher in the BSO group at 10 years, but lower at 20 years.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of age to determine menopausal status and the lack of genetic predisposition data, and the focus only on a relatively homogeneous population that may not be generalizable to other populations, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a nationwide registry and the long-term follow-up period, they said. The current study indicates that the health risks outweigh the potential benefits of BSO with benign hysterectomy for premenopausal women and supports the current guidelines for ovarian conservation in these women with low lifetime ovarian cancer risk, they said. For postmenopausal women, the data support a cautious approach to BSO given the lack of a clear survival benefit and cancer excess, they concluded.
 

Delayed diagnosis of ovarian cancers favors BSO

“The question of removing ovaries at the time of benign hysterectomy to prevent ovarian cancer in low-risk women has been widely debated,” which has contributed to the variation in incidence rates of unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy over time, wrote Elizabeth Casiano Evans, MD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and Deslyn T.G. Hobson, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, in an accompanying editorial.

Ovarian cancer often goes undiagnosed until an advanced stage, and BSO can significantly reduce risk in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, they noted.

For women without increased risk, those who are premenopausal may wish to preserve ovarian function, but women also may benefit from improvements in a range of menopause-related symptoms including vasomotor and urogenital symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and psychiatric and cognitive symptoms, they said.

“In addition, salpingectomy alone has a role in significantly reducing ovarian cancer incidence without compromising ovarian function because the fallopian tube has been found to be at the origin of many ovarian cancer cases,” they noted. In the current study, “the crude ovarian cancer risk was lower with BSO” across all age groups, the editorialists said.

The choice of whether to include BSO at the time of benign hysterectomy is complicated, with many factors to consider, the editorialists wrote, and the current study supports the need for informed, shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Society’s Scientific Committee and the Mermaid Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Use of oophorectomy for adnexal torsion has remained at approximately 70% despite guidelines advising ovarian conservation, based on data from more than 1,700 individuals.

Prompt surgical management is essential in cases of ovarian torsion in order to salvage ovarian function, and recent studies have shown that conservative management with detorsion does not increase postoperative complications, compared with oophorectomy, wrote Hannah Ryles, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued practice guidelines in November 2016 that recommended ovarian conservation rather than oophorectomy to manage adnexal torsion in women wishing to preserve fertility. However, the impact of this guideline on clinical practice and surgical patterns remains unclear, the researchers said.

In a study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 402 patients who underwent surgeries before the updated ACOG guidelines (2008-2016) and 1,389 who underwent surgeries after the guidelines (2017-2020). Surgery data came from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. The study population included women aged 18-50 years who underwent adnexal torsion surgery and were identified as having either oophorectomy or ovarian conservation surgery.

A total of 1,791 surgeries performed for adnexal torsion were included in the study; 542 (30.3%) involved ovarian conservation and 1,249 (69.7%) involved oophorectomy.

The proportion of oophorectomies was similar during the periods before and after the guidelines (71.9% vs. 69.1%; P = .16). However, the proportion of oophorectomies changed significantly across the entire study period, by approximately –1.6% each year.

Factors significantly associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation included older age (35 years vs. 28 years), higher body mass index (29.2 kg/m² vs. 27.5 kg/m²), anemia (12.2% vs. 7.2%), hypertension (10.4% vs. 3.1%), and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification.

“There remains no defined acceptable rate of oophorectomy; this decision involves multiple factors, such as fertility and other patient desires after a risk and benefit discussion, menopausal status, concern for malignancy, and safety and feasibility of conservative procedures,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, in emergency situations, it may be difficult to determine a patient’s preferences, and a lack of desire for future fertility may be presumed, which may contribute to the relatively high oophorectomy rates over time, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and lack of data on surgical history, histopathology, and intraoperative appearance of the ovary, as well as lack of clinical data including the time from presentation to diagnosis or surgery, the researchers noted. “Although we were also unable to determine obstetric history and fertility desires, our median age of 32 years reflects a young cohort that was limited to women of reproductive age,” they added.

However, the results reflect studies suggesting that clinical practice often lags behind updated guidelines, and the findings were strengthened by the use of the NSQIP database and reflect a need for greater efforts to promote ovarian conservation in accordance with the current guidelines, the researchers concluded.
 

Consider unilateral oophorectomy

The current study highlights the discrepancy between the ACOG guidelines and clinical practice, with “disappointingly low” rates of ovarian preservation in the adult population, wrote Riley J. Young, MD, and Kimberly A. Kho, MD, both of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, in an accompanying editorial. The reasons for the discrepancy include clinical concerns for conserving a torsed ovary and the difficulty of assessing fertility desires in an emergency situation, they said.

However, consideration of unilateral oophorectomy as an option should be part of clinical decision-making, according to the editorialists. Previous studies suggest that retention of a single ovarian may still allow for a successful pregnancy, and the effects of unilateral oophorectomy have been studied in infertility and assisted reproductive technology settings.

Women with a single ovary have fewer eggs and require higher amounts of gonadotropins, but pregnancy is possible, the editorialists said. However, the long-term effects of unilateral oophorectomy are uncertain, and potential detrimental outcomes include increased mortality and cognitive impairment; therefore “we aim for premenopausal ovaries simply to be conserved, whether fertility is the stated goal or not,” they noted. This may include consideration of unilateral oophorectomy. “Each ovary conserved at midnight moves us closer to a more acceptable ovarian conservation rate,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kho disclosed funding to her institution from Hologic for being on an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Young had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of oophorectomy for adnexal torsion has remained at approximately 70% despite guidelines advising ovarian conservation, based on data from more than 1,700 individuals.

Prompt surgical management is essential in cases of ovarian torsion in order to salvage ovarian function, and recent studies have shown that conservative management with detorsion does not increase postoperative complications, compared with oophorectomy, wrote Hannah Ryles, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued practice guidelines in November 2016 that recommended ovarian conservation rather than oophorectomy to manage adnexal torsion in women wishing to preserve fertility. However, the impact of this guideline on clinical practice and surgical patterns remains unclear, the researchers said.

In a study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 402 patients who underwent surgeries before the updated ACOG guidelines (2008-2016) and 1,389 who underwent surgeries after the guidelines (2017-2020). Surgery data came from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. The study population included women aged 18-50 years who underwent adnexal torsion surgery and were identified as having either oophorectomy or ovarian conservation surgery.

A total of 1,791 surgeries performed for adnexal torsion were included in the study; 542 (30.3%) involved ovarian conservation and 1,249 (69.7%) involved oophorectomy.

The proportion of oophorectomies was similar during the periods before and after the guidelines (71.9% vs. 69.1%; P = .16). However, the proportion of oophorectomies changed significantly across the entire study period, by approximately –1.6% each year.

Factors significantly associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation included older age (35 years vs. 28 years), higher body mass index (29.2 kg/m² vs. 27.5 kg/m²), anemia (12.2% vs. 7.2%), hypertension (10.4% vs. 3.1%), and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification.

“There remains no defined acceptable rate of oophorectomy; this decision involves multiple factors, such as fertility and other patient desires after a risk and benefit discussion, menopausal status, concern for malignancy, and safety and feasibility of conservative procedures,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, in emergency situations, it may be difficult to determine a patient’s preferences, and a lack of desire for future fertility may be presumed, which may contribute to the relatively high oophorectomy rates over time, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and lack of data on surgical history, histopathology, and intraoperative appearance of the ovary, as well as lack of clinical data including the time from presentation to diagnosis or surgery, the researchers noted. “Although we were also unable to determine obstetric history and fertility desires, our median age of 32 years reflects a young cohort that was limited to women of reproductive age,” they added.

However, the results reflect studies suggesting that clinical practice often lags behind updated guidelines, and the findings were strengthened by the use of the NSQIP database and reflect a need for greater efforts to promote ovarian conservation in accordance with the current guidelines, the researchers concluded.
 

Consider unilateral oophorectomy

The current study highlights the discrepancy between the ACOG guidelines and clinical practice, with “disappointingly low” rates of ovarian preservation in the adult population, wrote Riley J. Young, MD, and Kimberly A. Kho, MD, both of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, in an accompanying editorial. The reasons for the discrepancy include clinical concerns for conserving a torsed ovary and the difficulty of assessing fertility desires in an emergency situation, they said.

However, consideration of unilateral oophorectomy as an option should be part of clinical decision-making, according to the editorialists. Previous studies suggest that retention of a single ovarian may still allow for a successful pregnancy, and the effects of unilateral oophorectomy have been studied in infertility and assisted reproductive technology settings.

Women with a single ovary have fewer eggs and require higher amounts of gonadotropins, but pregnancy is possible, the editorialists said. However, the long-term effects of unilateral oophorectomy are uncertain, and potential detrimental outcomes include increased mortality and cognitive impairment; therefore “we aim for premenopausal ovaries simply to be conserved, whether fertility is the stated goal or not,” they noted. This may include consideration of unilateral oophorectomy. “Each ovary conserved at midnight moves us closer to a more acceptable ovarian conservation rate,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kho disclosed funding to her institution from Hologic for being on an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Young had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of oophorectomy for adnexal torsion has remained at approximately 70% despite guidelines advising ovarian conservation, based on data from more than 1,700 individuals.

Prompt surgical management is essential in cases of ovarian torsion in order to salvage ovarian function, and recent studies have shown that conservative management with detorsion does not increase postoperative complications, compared with oophorectomy, wrote Hannah Ryles, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued practice guidelines in November 2016 that recommended ovarian conservation rather than oophorectomy to manage adnexal torsion in women wishing to preserve fertility. However, the impact of this guideline on clinical practice and surgical patterns remains unclear, the researchers said.

In a study published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 402 patients who underwent surgeries before the updated ACOG guidelines (2008-2016) and 1,389 who underwent surgeries after the guidelines (2017-2020). Surgery data came from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. The study population included women aged 18-50 years who underwent adnexal torsion surgery and were identified as having either oophorectomy or ovarian conservation surgery.

A total of 1,791 surgeries performed for adnexal torsion were included in the study; 542 (30.3%) involved ovarian conservation and 1,249 (69.7%) involved oophorectomy.

The proportion of oophorectomies was similar during the periods before and after the guidelines (71.9% vs. 69.1%; P = .16). However, the proportion of oophorectomies changed significantly across the entire study period, by approximately –1.6% each year.

Factors significantly associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation included older age (35 years vs. 28 years), higher body mass index (29.2 kg/m² vs. 27.5 kg/m²), anemia (12.2% vs. 7.2%), hypertension (10.4% vs. 3.1%), and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification.

“There remains no defined acceptable rate of oophorectomy; this decision involves multiple factors, such as fertility and other patient desires after a risk and benefit discussion, menopausal status, concern for malignancy, and safety and feasibility of conservative procedures,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, in emergency situations, it may be difficult to determine a patient’s preferences, and a lack of desire for future fertility may be presumed, which may contribute to the relatively high oophorectomy rates over time, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and lack of data on surgical history, histopathology, and intraoperative appearance of the ovary, as well as lack of clinical data including the time from presentation to diagnosis or surgery, the researchers noted. “Although we were also unable to determine obstetric history and fertility desires, our median age of 32 years reflects a young cohort that was limited to women of reproductive age,” they added.

However, the results reflect studies suggesting that clinical practice often lags behind updated guidelines, and the findings were strengthened by the use of the NSQIP database and reflect a need for greater efforts to promote ovarian conservation in accordance with the current guidelines, the researchers concluded.
 

Consider unilateral oophorectomy

The current study highlights the discrepancy between the ACOG guidelines and clinical practice, with “disappointingly low” rates of ovarian preservation in the adult population, wrote Riley J. Young, MD, and Kimberly A. Kho, MD, both of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, in an accompanying editorial. The reasons for the discrepancy include clinical concerns for conserving a torsed ovary and the difficulty of assessing fertility desires in an emergency situation, they said.

However, consideration of unilateral oophorectomy as an option should be part of clinical decision-making, according to the editorialists. Previous studies suggest that retention of a single ovarian may still allow for a successful pregnancy, and the effects of unilateral oophorectomy have been studied in infertility and assisted reproductive technology settings.

Women with a single ovary have fewer eggs and require higher amounts of gonadotropins, but pregnancy is possible, the editorialists said. However, the long-term effects of unilateral oophorectomy are uncertain, and potential detrimental outcomes include increased mortality and cognitive impairment; therefore “we aim for premenopausal ovaries simply to be conserved, whether fertility is the stated goal or not,” they noted. This may include consideration of unilateral oophorectomy. “Each ovary conserved at midnight moves us closer to a more acceptable ovarian conservation rate,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kho disclosed funding to her institution from Hologic for being on an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Young had no financial conflicts to disclose.