User login
Clinical Psychiatry News is the online destination and multimedia properties of Clinica Psychiatry News, the independent news publication for psychiatrists. Since 1971, Clinical Psychiatry News has been the leading source of news and commentary about clinical developments in psychiatry as well as health care policy and regulations that affect the physician's practice.
Dear Drupal User: You're seeing this because you're logged in to Drupal, and not redirected to MDedge.com/psychiatry.
Depression
adolescent depression
adolescent major depressive disorder
adolescent schizophrenia
adolescent with major depressive disorder
animals
autism
baby
brexpiprazole
child
child bipolar
child depression
child schizophrenia
children with bipolar disorder
children with depression
children with major depressive disorder
compulsive behaviors
cure
elderly bipolar
elderly depression
elderly major depressive disorder
elderly schizophrenia
elderly with dementia
first break
first episode
gambling
gaming
geriatric depression
geriatric major depressive disorder
geriatric schizophrenia
infant
ketamine
kid
major depressive disorder
major depressive disorder in adolescents
major depressive disorder in children
parenting
pediatric
pediatric bipolar
pediatric depression
pediatric major depressive disorder
pediatric schizophrenia
pregnancy
pregnant
rexulti
skin care
suicide
teen
wine
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-article-cpn')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-home-cpn')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-topic-cpn')]
div[contains(@class, 'panel-panel-inner')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-node-field-article-topics')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
Will the Federal Non-Compete Ban Take Effect?
(with very limited exceptions). The final rule will not go into effect until 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which took place on May 7, and numerous legal challenges appear to be on the horizon.
The principal components of the rule are as follows:
- After the effective date, most non-compete agreements (which prevent departing employees from signing with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area) are banned nationwide.
- The rule exempts certain “senior executives,” ie individuals who earn more than $151,164 annually and serve in policy-making positions.
- There is another major exception for non-competes connected with a sale of a business.
- While not explicitly stated, the rule arguably exempts non-profits, tax-exempt hospitals, and other tax-exempt entities.
- Employers must provide verbal and written notice to employees regarding existing agreements, which would be voided under the rule.
The final rule is the latest skirmish in an ongoing, years-long debate. Twelve states have already put non-compete bans in place, according to a recent paper, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each state rule varies in its specifics as states respond to local market conditions. While some states ban all non-compete agreements outright, others limit them based on variables, such as income and employment circumstances. Of course, should the federal ban take effect, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.
In drafting the rule, the FTC reasoned that non-compete clauses constitute restraint of trade, and eliminating them could potentially increase worker earnings as well as lower health care costs by billions of dollars. In its statements on the proposed ban, the FTC claimed that it could lower health spending across the board by almost $150 billion per year and return $300 million to workers each year in earnings. The agency cited a large body of research that non-competes make it harder for workers to move between jobs and can raise prices for goods and services, while suppressing wages for workers and inhibiting the creation of new businesses.
Most physicians affected by non-compete agreements heavily favor the new rule, because it would give them more control over their careers and expand their practice and income opportunities. It would allow them to get a new job with a competing organization, bucking a long-standing trend that hospitals and health care systems have heavily relied on to keep staff in place.
The rule would, however, keep in place “non-solicitation” rules that many health care organizations have put in place. That means that if a physician leaves an employer, he or she cannot reach out to former patients and colleagues to bring them along or invite them to join him or her at the new employment venue.
Within that clause, however, the FTC has specified that if such non-solicitation agreement has the “equivalent effect” of a non-compete, the agency would deem it such. That means, even if that rule stands, it could be contested and may be interpreted as violating the non-compete provision. So, there is value in reading all the fine print should the rule move forward.
Physicians in independent practices who employ physician assistants and nurse practitioners have expressed concerns that their expensively trained employees might be tempted to accept a nearby, higher-paying position. The “non-solicitation” clause would theoretically prevent them from taking patients and co-workers with them — unless it were successfully contested. Many questions remain.
Further complicating the non-compete ban issue is how it might impact nonprofit institutions. Most hospitals structured as nonprofits would theoretically be exempt from the rule, although it is not specifically stated in the rule itself, because the FTC Act gives the Commission jurisdiction over for-profit companies only. This would obviously create an unfair advantage for nonprofits, who could continue writing non-compete clauses with impunity.
All of these questions may be moot, of course, because a number of powerful entities with deep pockets have lined up in opposition to the rule. Some of them have even questioned the FTC’s authority to pass the rule at all, on the grounds that Section 5 of the FTC Act does not give it the authority to police labor markets. A lawsuit has already been filed by the US Chamber of Commerce. Other large groups in opposition are the American Medical Group Association, the American Hospital Association, and numerous large hospital and healthcare networks.
Only time will tell whether this issue will be regulated on a national level or remain the purview of each individual state.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
(with very limited exceptions). The final rule will not go into effect until 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which took place on May 7, and numerous legal challenges appear to be on the horizon.
The principal components of the rule are as follows:
- After the effective date, most non-compete agreements (which prevent departing employees from signing with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area) are banned nationwide.
- The rule exempts certain “senior executives,” ie individuals who earn more than $151,164 annually and serve in policy-making positions.
- There is another major exception for non-competes connected with a sale of a business.
- While not explicitly stated, the rule arguably exempts non-profits, tax-exempt hospitals, and other tax-exempt entities.
- Employers must provide verbal and written notice to employees regarding existing agreements, which would be voided under the rule.
The final rule is the latest skirmish in an ongoing, years-long debate. Twelve states have already put non-compete bans in place, according to a recent paper, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each state rule varies in its specifics as states respond to local market conditions. While some states ban all non-compete agreements outright, others limit them based on variables, such as income and employment circumstances. Of course, should the federal ban take effect, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.
In drafting the rule, the FTC reasoned that non-compete clauses constitute restraint of trade, and eliminating them could potentially increase worker earnings as well as lower health care costs by billions of dollars. In its statements on the proposed ban, the FTC claimed that it could lower health spending across the board by almost $150 billion per year and return $300 million to workers each year in earnings. The agency cited a large body of research that non-competes make it harder for workers to move between jobs and can raise prices for goods and services, while suppressing wages for workers and inhibiting the creation of new businesses.
Most physicians affected by non-compete agreements heavily favor the new rule, because it would give them more control over their careers and expand their practice and income opportunities. It would allow them to get a new job with a competing organization, bucking a long-standing trend that hospitals and health care systems have heavily relied on to keep staff in place.
The rule would, however, keep in place “non-solicitation” rules that many health care organizations have put in place. That means that if a physician leaves an employer, he or she cannot reach out to former patients and colleagues to bring them along or invite them to join him or her at the new employment venue.
Within that clause, however, the FTC has specified that if such non-solicitation agreement has the “equivalent effect” of a non-compete, the agency would deem it such. That means, even if that rule stands, it could be contested and may be interpreted as violating the non-compete provision. So, there is value in reading all the fine print should the rule move forward.
Physicians in independent practices who employ physician assistants and nurse practitioners have expressed concerns that their expensively trained employees might be tempted to accept a nearby, higher-paying position. The “non-solicitation” clause would theoretically prevent them from taking patients and co-workers with them — unless it were successfully contested. Many questions remain.
Further complicating the non-compete ban issue is how it might impact nonprofit institutions. Most hospitals structured as nonprofits would theoretically be exempt from the rule, although it is not specifically stated in the rule itself, because the FTC Act gives the Commission jurisdiction over for-profit companies only. This would obviously create an unfair advantage for nonprofits, who could continue writing non-compete clauses with impunity.
All of these questions may be moot, of course, because a number of powerful entities with deep pockets have lined up in opposition to the rule. Some of them have even questioned the FTC’s authority to pass the rule at all, on the grounds that Section 5 of the FTC Act does not give it the authority to police labor markets. A lawsuit has already been filed by the US Chamber of Commerce. Other large groups in opposition are the American Medical Group Association, the American Hospital Association, and numerous large hospital and healthcare networks.
Only time will tell whether this issue will be regulated on a national level or remain the purview of each individual state.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
(with very limited exceptions). The final rule will not go into effect until 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which took place on May 7, and numerous legal challenges appear to be on the horizon.
The principal components of the rule are as follows:
- After the effective date, most non-compete agreements (which prevent departing employees from signing with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area) are banned nationwide.
- The rule exempts certain “senior executives,” ie individuals who earn more than $151,164 annually and serve in policy-making positions.
- There is another major exception for non-competes connected with a sale of a business.
- While not explicitly stated, the rule arguably exempts non-profits, tax-exempt hospitals, and other tax-exempt entities.
- Employers must provide verbal and written notice to employees regarding existing agreements, which would be voided under the rule.
The final rule is the latest skirmish in an ongoing, years-long debate. Twelve states have already put non-compete bans in place, according to a recent paper, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each state rule varies in its specifics as states respond to local market conditions. While some states ban all non-compete agreements outright, others limit them based on variables, such as income and employment circumstances. Of course, should the federal ban take effect, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.
In drafting the rule, the FTC reasoned that non-compete clauses constitute restraint of trade, and eliminating them could potentially increase worker earnings as well as lower health care costs by billions of dollars. In its statements on the proposed ban, the FTC claimed that it could lower health spending across the board by almost $150 billion per year and return $300 million to workers each year in earnings. The agency cited a large body of research that non-competes make it harder for workers to move between jobs and can raise prices for goods and services, while suppressing wages for workers and inhibiting the creation of new businesses.
Most physicians affected by non-compete agreements heavily favor the new rule, because it would give them more control over their careers and expand their practice and income opportunities. It would allow them to get a new job with a competing organization, bucking a long-standing trend that hospitals and health care systems have heavily relied on to keep staff in place.
The rule would, however, keep in place “non-solicitation” rules that many health care organizations have put in place. That means that if a physician leaves an employer, he or she cannot reach out to former patients and colleagues to bring them along or invite them to join him or her at the new employment venue.
Within that clause, however, the FTC has specified that if such non-solicitation agreement has the “equivalent effect” of a non-compete, the agency would deem it such. That means, even if that rule stands, it could be contested and may be interpreted as violating the non-compete provision. So, there is value in reading all the fine print should the rule move forward.
Physicians in independent practices who employ physician assistants and nurse practitioners have expressed concerns that their expensively trained employees might be tempted to accept a nearby, higher-paying position. The “non-solicitation” clause would theoretically prevent them from taking patients and co-workers with them — unless it were successfully contested. Many questions remain.
Further complicating the non-compete ban issue is how it might impact nonprofit institutions. Most hospitals structured as nonprofits would theoretically be exempt from the rule, although it is not specifically stated in the rule itself, because the FTC Act gives the Commission jurisdiction over for-profit companies only. This would obviously create an unfair advantage for nonprofits, who could continue writing non-compete clauses with impunity.
All of these questions may be moot, of course, because a number of powerful entities with deep pockets have lined up in opposition to the rule. Some of them have even questioned the FTC’s authority to pass the rule at all, on the grounds that Section 5 of the FTC Act does not give it the authority to police labor markets. A lawsuit has already been filed by the US Chamber of Commerce. Other large groups in opposition are the American Medical Group Association, the American Hospital Association, and numerous large hospital and healthcare networks.
Only time will tell whether this issue will be regulated on a national level or remain the purview of each individual state.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
Post–Mohs Surgery Opioid Prescribing More Common in Some Patient Groups
PHOENIX — The study also found that patients who do receive opioids postoperatively are at an increased risk for chronic opioid use and complications.
This report represents the largest analysis to date of opioid prescribing after dermatologic surgery, said lead author Kyle C. Lauck, MD, a dermatology resident at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. “Females, African Americans, and Latino patients may be at a higher risk of opioid prescription after dermatologic surgery. Surgeons should be aware of these populations and the risks they face when determining candidacy for postsurgical opioid analgesia.”
He presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
The opioid epidemic is a concern across all areas of medicine, and the majority of opioid prescriptions in dermatology are given following surgery. Dr. Lauck noted that even though guidelines delegate opioids as second line for pain control, the existing data on opioid prescribing in dermatologic surgery is mixed. For example, some reports have shown that up to 58% of patients receive opioids postoperatively. “No consensus exists when we should routinely give opioids to these patients,” he said.
Even though most surgeons prescribe short courses of opioids, even brief regimens are associated with increased risks for overuse and substance abuse. Population-level data are limited concerning opioid prescriptions in dermatologic surgery, and in particular, there is an absence of data on the risk for long-term complications associated with use.
Certain Populations at Risk
To evaluate opioid prescription rates in dermatologic surgery, focusing on disparities between demographic populations, as well as the risk for long-term complications of postoperative opioid prescriptions, Dr. Lauck and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that included 914,721 dermatologic surgery patients, with billing codes for Mohs micrographic surgery. Patient data were obtained from TriNetX, a federated health research network.
The mean age of patients in this cohort was 54 years, and 124,494 (13.6%) were prescribed postsurgical oral opioids. The most common was oxycodone, prescribed to 43% of patients. Dr. Lauck noted that, according to their data, certain groups appeared more likely to receive a prescription for opioids following surgery. These included Black or African American patients (23.75% vs 12.86% for White patients), females (13.73% vs 13.16% for males), and Latino or Hispanic patients (17.02% vs 13.61% non-Latino/Hispanic patients).
Patients with a history of prior oral opioid prescription, prior opioid abuse or dependence, and any type of substance abuse had a significant increase in absolute risk of being prescribed postsurgical opioids (P < .0001).
The type of surgery also was associated with prescribed postop opioids. For a malignant excision, 18.29% of patients were prescribed postop opioids compared with 14.9% for a benign excision. About a third of patients (34.9%) undergoing a graft repair received opioids.
There was an elevated rate of postop opioid prescribing that was specific to the site of surgery, with the highest rates observed with eyelids, scalp and neck, trunk, and genital sites. The highest overall rates of opioid prescriptions were for patients who underwent excisions in the genital area (54.5%).
Long-Term Consequences
The authors also looked at the longer-term consequences of postop opioid use. “Nearly one in three patients who were prescribed opioids needed subsequent prescriptions down the line,” said Dr. Lauck.
From 3 months to 5 years after surgery, patients who received postsurgical opioids were at significantly higher risk for not only subsequent oral opioid prescription but also opiate abuse, any substance abuse, overdose by opioid narcotics, constipation, and chronic pain. “An opioid prescription may confer further risks of longitudinal complications of chronic opioid use,” he concluded.
Commenting on the study, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted an important finding of this study was the long-term sequelae of patients who did receive postop opioids.
“This is striking given that postsurgical opiate prescriptions are for short durations and limited number of pills,” he told this news organization. “This study highlights the potential danger of even short course of opiates and should serve as a reminder to dermatologic surgeons to be judicious about opiate prescribing.”
Dr. Lauck and Dr. Lewin had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — The study also found that patients who do receive opioids postoperatively are at an increased risk for chronic opioid use and complications.
This report represents the largest analysis to date of opioid prescribing after dermatologic surgery, said lead author Kyle C. Lauck, MD, a dermatology resident at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. “Females, African Americans, and Latino patients may be at a higher risk of opioid prescription after dermatologic surgery. Surgeons should be aware of these populations and the risks they face when determining candidacy for postsurgical opioid analgesia.”
He presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
The opioid epidemic is a concern across all areas of medicine, and the majority of opioid prescriptions in dermatology are given following surgery. Dr. Lauck noted that even though guidelines delegate opioids as second line for pain control, the existing data on opioid prescribing in dermatologic surgery is mixed. For example, some reports have shown that up to 58% of patients receive opioids postoperatively. “No consensus exists when we should routinely give opioids to these patients,” he said.
Even though most surgeons prescribe short courses of opioids, even brief regimens are associated with increased risks for overuse and substance abuse. Population-level data are limited concerning opioid prescriptions in dermatologic surgery, and in particular, there is an absence of data on the risk for long-term complications associated with use.
Certain Populations at Risk
To evaluate opioid prescription rates in dermatologic surgery, focusing on disparities between demographic populations, as well as the risk for long-term complications of postoperative opioid prescriptions, Dr. Lauck and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that included 914,721 dermatologic surgery patients, with billing codes for Mohs micrographic surgery. Patient data were obtained from TriNetX, a federated health research network.
The mean age of patients in this cohort was 54 years, and 124,494 (13.6%) were prescribed postsurgical oral opioids. The most common was oxycodone, prescribed to 43% of patients. Dr. Lauck noted that, according to their data, certain groups appeared more likely to receive a prescription for opioids following surgery. These included Black or African American patients (23.75% vs 12.86% for White patients), females (13.73% vs 13.16% for males), and Latino or Hispanic patients (17.02% vs 13.61% non-Latino/Hispanic patients).
Patients with a history of prior oral opioid prescription, prior opioid abuse or dependence, and any type of substance abuse had a significant increase in absolute risk of being prescribed postsurgical opioids (P < .0001).
The type of surgery also was associated with prescribed postop opioids. For a malignant excision, 18.29% of patients were prescribed postop opioids compared with 14.9% for a benign excision. About a third of patients (34.9%) undergoing a graft repair received opioids.
There was an elevated rate of postop opioid prescribing that was specific to the site of surgery, with the highest rates observed with eyelids, scalp and neck, trunk, and genital sites. The highest overall rates of opioid prescriptions were for patients who underwent excisions in the genital area (54.5%).
Long-Term Consequences
The authors also looked at the longer-term consequences of postop opioid use. “Nearly one in three patients who were prescribed opioids needed subsequent prescriptions down the line,” said Dr. Lauck.
From 3 months to 5 years after surgery, patients who received postsurgical opioids were at significantly higher risk for not only subsequent oral opioid prescription but also opiate abuse, any substance abuse, overdose by opioid narcotics, constipation, and chronic pain. “An opioid prescription may confer further risks of longitudinal complications of chronic opioid use,” he concluded.
Commenting on the study, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted an important finding of this study was the long-term sequelae of patients who did receive postop opioids.
“This is striking given that postsurgical opiate prescriptions are for short durations and limited number of pills,” he told this news organization. “This study highlights the potential danger of even short course of opiates and should serve as a reminder to dermatologic surgeons to be judicious about opiate prescribing.”
Dr. Lauck and Dr. Lewin had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — The study also found that patients who do receive opioids postoperatively are at an increased risk for chronic opioid use and complications.
This report represents the largest analysis to date of opioid prescribing after dermatologic surgery, said lead author Kyle C. Lauck, MD, a dermatology resident at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. “Females, African Americans, and Latino patients may be at a higher risk of opioid prescription after dermatologic surgery. Surgeons should be aware of these populations and the risks they face when determining candidacy for postsurgical opioid analgesia.”
He presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
The opioid epidemic is a concern across all areas of medicine, and the majority of opioid prescriptions in dermatology are given following surgery. Dr. Lauck noted that even though guidelines delegate opioids as second line for pain control, the existing data on opioid prescribing in dermatologic surgery is mixed. For example, some reports have shown that up to 58% of patients receive opioids postoperatively. “No consensus exists when we should routinely give opioids to these patients,” he said.
Even though most surgeons prescribe short courses of opioids, even brief regimens are associated with increased risks for overuse and substance abuse. Population-level data are limited concerning opioid prescriptions in dermatologic surgery, and in particular, there is an absence of data on the risk for long-term complications associated with use.
Certain Populations at Risk
To evaluate opioid prescription rates in dermatologic surgery, focusing on disparities between demographic populations, as well as the risk for long-term complications of postoperative opioid prescriptions, Dr. Lauck and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that included 914,721 dermatologic surgery patients, with billing codes for Mohs micrographic surgery. Patient data were obtained from TriNetX, a federated health research network.
The mean age of patients in this cohort was 54 years, and 124,494 (13.6%) were prescribed postsurgical oral opioids. The most common was oxycodone, prescribed to 43% of patients. Dr. Lauck noted that, according to their data, certain groups appeared more likely to receive a prescription for opioids following surgery. These included Black or African American patients (23.75% vs 12.86% for White patients), females (13.73% vs 13.16% for males), and Latino or Hispanic patients (17.02% vs 13.61% non-Latino/Hispanic patients).
Patients with a history of prior oral opioid prescription, prior opioid abuse or dependence, and any type of substance abuse had a significant increase in absolute risk of being prescribed postsurgical opioids (P < .0001).
The type of surgery also was associated with prescribed postop opioids. For a malignant excision, 18.29% of patients were prescribed postop opioids compared with 14.9% for a benign excision. About a third of patients (34.9%) undergoing a graft repair received opioids.
There was an elevated rate of postop opioid prescribing that was specific to the site of surgery, with the highest rates observed with eyelids, scalp and neck, trunk, and genital sites. The highest overall rates of opioid prescriptions were for patients who underwent excisions in the genital area (54.5%).
Long-Term Consequences
The authors also looked at the longer-term consequences of postop opioid use. “Nearly one in three patients who were prescribed opioids needed subsequent prescriptions down the line,” said Dr. Lauck.
From 3 months to 5 years after surgery, patients who received postsurgical opioids were at significantly higher risk for not only subsequent oral opioid prescription but also opiate abuse, any substance abuse, overdose by opioid narcotics, constipation, and chronic pain. “An opioid prescription may confer further risks of longitudinal complications of chronic opioid use,” he concluded.
Commenting on the study, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted an important finding of this study was the long-term sequelae of patients who did receive postop opioids.
“This is striking given that postsurgical opiate prescriptions are for short durations and limited number of pills,” he told this news organization. “This study highlights the potential danger of even short course of opiates and should serve as a reminder to dermatologic surgeons to be judicious about opiate prescribing.”
Dr. Lauck and Dr. Lewin had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACMS 2024
Severe Maternal Morbidity Can Adversely Affect Mental Health
TOPLINE:
Individuals with severe maternal morbidity (SMM) are at an increased risk for mental health condition–related hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visits up to 13 years after delivery.
METHODOLOGY:
- This retrospective cohort study compared mental health hospitalizations and ED visits in postpartum individuals with and without SMM over 13 years after delivery from April 2008 to March 2021.
- The study analyzed 1,579,392 individuals aged 18-55 years with a first recorded liveborn or stillborn delivery from a pregnancy lasting 20-43 weeks, of which 35,825 (2.3%) had exposure to SMM.
- The SMM exposure was analyzed for events occurring after 20 weeks’ gestation and up to 42 days after delivery hospital discharge in the first recorded birth; those without SMM were considered unexposed.
- The main outcome was a combination of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits occurring at least 43 days after the index birth hospitalization.
TAKEAWAY:
- Individuals with SMM had a 1.3-fold increased risk of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits.
- The hospital or ED visits per 10,000 person-years were 59.2 for mood and anxiety disorders, 17.1 for substance abuse and related disorders, 4.8 for suicidality or self-harm, and 4.1 for schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders.
- Following SMM, an elevated risk was observed for all mental health outcomes except one (schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders), with the highest risk seen for suicidality and self-harm (aHR, 1.54).
IN PRACTICE:
“Knowledge of the short- and long-term risks of serious mental health conditions after SMM and its subtypes could inform the need for enhanced postpartum supportive resources,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Asia Blackman, MSc, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is limited by its observational design, missing data, and misclassification bias.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Three authors reported receiving personal fees or grants outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Individuals with severe maternal morbidity (SMM) are at an increased risk for mental health condition–related hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visits up to 13 years after delivery.
METHODOLOGY:
- This retrospective cohort study compared mental health hospitalizations and ED visits in postpartum individuals with and without SMM over 13 years after delivery from April 2008 to March 2021.
- The study analyzed 1,579,392 individuals aged 18-55 years with a first recorded liveborn or stillborn delivery from a pregnancy lasting 20-43 weeks, of which 35,825 (2.3%) had exposure to SMM.
- The SMM exposure was analyzed for events occurring after 20 weeks’ gestation and up to 42 days after delivery hospital discharge in the first recorded birth; those without SMM were considered unexposed.
- The main outcome was a combination of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits occurring at least 43 days after the index birth hospitalization.
TAKEAWAY:
- Individuals with SMM had a 1.3-fold increased risk of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits.
- The hospital or ED visits per 10,000 person-years were 59.2 for mood and anxiety disorders, 17.1 for substance abuse and related disorders, 4.8 for suicidality or self-harm, and 4.1 for schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders.
- Following SMM, an elevated risk was observed for all mental health outcomes except one (schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders), with the highest risk seen for suicidality and self-harm (aHR, 1.54).
IN PRACTICE:
“Knowledge of the short- and long-term risks of serious mental health conditions after SMM and its subtypes could inform the need for enhanced postpartum supportive resources,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Asia Blackman, MSc, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is limited by its observational design, missing data, and misclassification bias.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Three authors reported receiving personal fees or grants outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Individuals with severe maternal morbidity (SMM) are at an increased risk for mental health condition–related hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visits up to 13 years after delivery.
METHODOLOGY:
- This retrospective cohort study compared mental health hospitalizations and ED visits in postpartum individuals with and without SMM over 13 years after delivery from April 2008 to March 2021.
- The study analyzed 1,579,392 individuals aged 18-55 years with a first recorded liveborn or stillborn delivery from a pregnancy lasting 20-43 weeks, of which 35,825 (2.3%) had exposure to SMM.
- The SMM exposure was analyzed for events occurring after 20 weeks’ gestation and up to 42 days after delivery hospital discharge in the first recorded birth; those without SMM were considered unexposed.
- The main outcome was a combination of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits occurring at least 43 days after the index birth hospitalization.
TAKEAWAY:
- Individuals with SMM had a 1.3-fold increased risk of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits.
- The hospital or ED visits per 10,000 person-years were 59.2 for mood and anxiety disorders, 17.1 for substance abuse and related disorders, 4.8 for suicidality or self-harm, and 4.1 for schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders.
- Following SMM, an elevated risk was observed for all mental health outcomes except one (schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders), with the highest risk seen for suicidality and self-harm (aHR, 1.54).
IN PRACTICE:
“Knowledge of the short- and long-term risks of serious mental health conditions after SMM and its subtypes could inform the need for enhanced postpartum supportive resources,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Asia Blackman, MSc, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is limited by its observational design, missing data, and misclassification bias.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Three authors reported receiving personal fees or grants outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Former UCLA Doctor Receives $14 Million in Gender Discrimination Retrial
A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.
The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.
Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.
She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.
Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.
She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.
“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.
A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.
The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine
The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.
Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.
That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.
“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”
Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.
Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.
“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.
Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.
Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.
According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.
Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.
To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.
The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.
Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.
She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.
Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.
She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.
“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.
A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.
The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine
The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.
Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.
That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.
“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”
Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.
Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.
“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.
Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.
Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.
According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.
Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.
To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.
The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.
Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.
She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.
Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.
She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.
“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.
A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.
The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine
The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.
Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.
That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.
“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”
Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.
Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.
“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.
Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.
Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.
According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.
Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.
To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
How Physician Mortgage Loans Work for Doctors With Debt
Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.
That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.
But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option.
What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?
, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.
The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:
- No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
- No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
- No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those.
- Different consideration of the student loan burden.
Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.
Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?
Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon.
If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.
Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”
Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”
Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”
What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?
The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.
“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.”
As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.”
But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice.
“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.”
What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?
Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:
- A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
- A rate that is much higher than others
- A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with
- A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment
Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.
Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure.
How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?
Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says.
Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts.
Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.
That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.
But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option.
What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?
, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.
The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:
- No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
- No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
- No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those.
- Different consideration of the student loan burden.
Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.
Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?
Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon.
If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.
Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”
Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”
Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”
What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?
The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.
“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.”
As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.”
But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice.
“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.”
What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?
Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:
- A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
- A rate that is much higher than others
- A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with
- A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment
Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.
Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure.
How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?
Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says.
Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts.
Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.
That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.
But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option.
What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?
, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.
The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:
- No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
- No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
- No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those.
- Different consideration of the student loan burden.
Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.
Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?
Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon.
If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.
Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”
Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”
Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”
What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?
The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.
“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.”
As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.”
But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice.
“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.”
What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?
Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:
- A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
- A rate that is much higher than others
- A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with
- A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment
Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.
Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure.
How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?
Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says.
Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts.
Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Crossing State Lines: PA Licensure Compact Coming Soon
For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now.
In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.
How the PA Compact Works
The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.
The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.
How the PA Compact Helps
The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.
PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.
One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.
A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.
Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont.
If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now.
In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.
How the PA Compact Works
The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.
The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.
How the PA Compact Helps
The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.
PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.
One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.
A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.
Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont.
If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now.
In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.
How the PA Compact Works
The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.
The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.
How the PA Compact Helps
The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.
PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.
One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.
A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.
Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont.
If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Follow-Up Outcomes Data Often Missing for FDA Drug Approvals Based on Surrogate Markers
Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.
Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.
The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.
Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.
“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.
The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.
In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.
Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.
Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.
“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”
Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
Surrogate Markers on the Rise
Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.
The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.
A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.
Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.
“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.
The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”
If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.
“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”
Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.
Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.
The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.
Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.
“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.
The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.
In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.
Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.
Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.
“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”
Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
Surrogate Markers on the Rise
Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.
The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.
A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.
Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.
“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.
The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”
If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.
“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”
Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.
Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.
The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.
Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.
“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.
The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.
In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.
Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.
Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.
“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”
Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
Surrogate Markers on the Rise
Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.
The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.
A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.
Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.
“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.
The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”
If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.
“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”
Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA
Protecting Patients From Cybercrime: Advice for Mental Health Clinicians
Seniors are increasingly targeted in ever-sophisticated online financial cybercrimes, but mental health clinicians can play a key role in protecting their patients.
Elizabeth J. Santos, MD, clinical chief, Division of Geriatric Mental Health & Memory Care, and associate professor of psychiatry, neurology & medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, provided tips to attendees of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 Annual Meeting, and elaborated on these for this news organization.
Cybercrimes targeting seniors are common. A 2023 University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging found 75% of adults aged 50-80 years experienced a fraud attempt either online or by phone, text, email, or mail in the past 2 years.
The poll found about 30% of respondents reported experiencing financial fraud, which could involve compromising credit cards, hacking bank accounts, or identity theft.
Older age is a risk factor for cybercrime. Seniors may have lower cognitive functioning and/or impaired decision-making. In addition, they are often socially isolated, dependent on others, and have poor health and financial literacy.
Romance Scams Common
Romance scams are another common financial fraud. Stephanie Garayalde, MD, a geriatric psychiatrist at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and another presenter at the APA session, used the example of Mr. L, a 74-year-old outpatient under treatment for depression who was unable to pay his rent.
Mr. L was giving money to his “girlfriend” he met online. Their relationship was totally virtual; she always had constant excuses for not meeting in person. He was funneling increasing funds to pay what he believed were medical bills and to bail her out of various other emergencies.
Once the fraud was discovered, Mr. L not only felt the loneliness of a lost romantic connection but also grappled with feelings of embarrassment and guilt.
“I see older patients who have been scammed who feel ashamed that they haven’t left enough money for their families,” said Dr. Santos.
Another well-known scam targets grandparents. Fraudsters sometimes use an artificial intelligence–generated voice mimicking a young family member and pretend to need money right away for bail or another problem.
In such situations, Dr. Santos advises patients to “hang up and call your family” to verify the call “no matter what the person says or who they sound like.”
Scammers may impersonate government officials to try to get social insurance information. Dr. Santos stresses the importance of never giving out this information. “If someone says they’re from your bank or a government agency like the IRS, hang up and call the bank or agency yourself.”
Evidence suggests this and other cybercrimes are on the rise. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Internet Crime Complaint Center received 888,000 complaints in 2023, a 10% increase from 2022, and losses of about $12.5 billion, which is a 22% increase over 2022.
It’s not that uncommon for the same older person to be scammed by numerous people and fall for it again and again, said Dr. Santos.
To mitigate the risk to this vulnerable group, researchers at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, are developing a scam screener for the elderly that will provide tools to help doctors screen older adults. The screen will focus on identifying factors that make victims most vulnerable, including seniors’ ability to think critically, a necessary skill for guarding against cybercrime.
Red Flags
In the meantime, Dr. Santos identified red flags for clinicians. Patients may show deviations in their typical behaviors; for example, they may seem sadder, more subdued, or more withdrawn than usual.
As loneliness and isolation can be a signal of victimization, “ask patients about their connectedness and be suspicious if the connectedness is all virtual,” she said.
Learning about the quality of their relationships is also important. “Instead of asking the superficial question of ‘Do you have friends’, ask ‘How do you talk to your friends? Are you actually getting out and meeting them?’”
If patients report they have never actually seen these so-called friends in-person, it should raise a red flag.
Another clue something may be amiss is “needing to be on their device or be home to get a call at a certain time.” Dr. Santos recalled a patient whose cell phone rang constantly during an evaluation, even after she had changed her phone number several times. “The scammers kept tracking her down,” she said.
Patients who are victims of cybercrime may stop taking their medications, fail to follow up on ordered tests, or miss paying for medical services.
Dr. Santos recommended screening for conditions known to be linked to cybercrime victimization such as depression. One of her patients was attending her memory clinic, but their cognitive issues were due to depression, not dementia.
It is important to identify subtle cognitive impairments. Dr. Santos recommended using the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination, which she says is easier to use than the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
Avoid Shaming
When managing patients who are potential cybercrime victims, she also suggests doctors be careful about their tone and their attitude. “Don’t shame someone for becoming a victim because it happens to everyone.”
When patients show signs of victimization, physicians could consider asking about their Internet use, social media practices, and general safety surrounding their finances.
They should emphasize the importance of protecting accounts through strong passwords, multifactor authentication when possible, and avoidance of sharing personal information with anyone who calls, emails, or texts.
Clinicians might also consider asking patients to review bills for new or unusual charges, check their bank account statements for withdrawals they didn’t make, and review credit reports for accounts in their name they don’t recognize.
Clinicians should also encourage patients to have a healthcare proxy, power of attorney, and advanced directives and recommend resources that can help victims. These include:
Federal Trade Commission (to report identity theft): https://reportfraud.ftc.gov; https://www.identitytheft.gov
Federal Bureau of Investigation – Internet Crime and Complaint Center https://www.ic3.gov
National Elder Fraud Hotline (1-833-372-8311) or 1-833-FRAUD-11
http://ovc.ojp.gov/program/stop-elder-fraud/providing-help-restoring-hope
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Seniors are increasingly targeted in ever-sophisticated online financial cybercrimes, but mental health clinicians can play a key role in protecting their patients.
Elizabeth J. Santos, MD, clinical chief, Division of Geriatric Mental Health & Memory Care, and associate professor of psychiatry, neurology & medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, provided tips to attendees of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 Annual Meeting, and elaborated on these for this news organization.
Cybercrimes targeting seniors are common. A 2023 University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging found 75% of adults aged 50-80 years experienced a fraud attempt either online or by phone, text, email, or mail in the past 2 years.
The poll found about 30% of respondents reported experiencing financial fraud, which could involve compromising credit cards, hacking bank accounts, or identity theft.
Older age is a risk factor for cybercrime. Seniors may have lower cognitive functioning and/or impaired decision-making. In addition, they are often socially isolated, dependent on others, and have poor health and financial literacy.
Romance Scams Common
Romance scams are another common financial fraud. Stephanie Garayalde, MD, a geriatric psychiatrist at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and another presenter at the APA session, used the example of Mr. L, a 74-year-old outpatient under treatment for depression who was unable to pay his rent.
Mr. L was giving money to his “girlfriend” he met online. Their relationship was totally virtual; she always had constant excuses for not meeting in person. He was funneling increasing funds to pay what he believed were medical bills and to bail her out of various other emergencies.
Once the fraud was discovered, Mr. L not only felt the loneliness of a lost romantic connection but also grappled with feelings of embarrassment and guilt.
“I see older patients who have been scammed who feel ashamed that they haven’t left enough money for their families,” said Dr. Santos.
Another well-known scam targets grandparents. Fraudsters sometimes use an artificial intelligence–generated voice mimicking a young family member and pretend to need money right away for bail or another problem.
In such situations, Dr. Santos advises patients to “hang up and call your family” to verify the call “no matter what the person says or who they sound like.”
Scammers may impersonate government officials to try to get social insurance information. Dr. Santos stresses the importance of never giving out this information. “If someone says they’re from your bank or a government agency like the IRS, hang up and call the bank or agency yourself.”
Evidence suggests this and other cybercrimes are on the rise. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Internet Crime Complaint Center received 888,000 complaints in 2023, a 10% increase from 2022, and losses of about $12.5 billion, which is a 22% increase over 2022.
It’s not that uncommon for the same older person to be scammed by numerous people and fall for it again and again, said Dr. Santos.
To mitigate the risk to this vulnerable group, researchers at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, are developing a scam screener for the elderly that will provide tools to help doctors screen older adults. The screen will focus on identifying factors that make victims most vulnerable, including seniors’ ability to think critically, a necessary skill for guarding against cybercrime.
Red Flags
In the meantime, Dr. Santos identified red flags for clinicians. Patients may show deviations in their typical behaviors; for example, they may seem sadder, more subdued, or more withdrawn than usual.
As loneliness and isolation can be a signal of victimization, “ask patients about their connectedness and be suspicious if the connectedness is all virtual,” she said.
Learning about the quality of their relationships is also important. “Instead of asking the superficial question of ‘Do you have friends’, ask ‘How do you talk to your friends? Are you actually getting out and meeting them?’”
If patients report they have never actually seen these so-called friends in-person, it should raise a red flag.
Another clue something may be amiss is “needing to be on their device or be home to get a call at a certain time.” Dr. Santos recalled a patient whose cell phone rang constantly during an evaluation, even after she had changed her phone number several times. “The scammers kept tracking her down,” she said.
Patients who are victims of cybercrime may stop taking their medications, fail to follow up on ordered tests, or miss paying for medical services.
Dr. Santos recommended screening for conditions known to be linked to cybercrime victimization such as depression. One of her patients was attending her memory clinic, but their cognitive issues were due to depression, not dementia.
It is important to identify subtle cognitive impairments. Dr. Santos recommended using the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination, which she says is easier to use than the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
Avoid Shaming
When managing patients who are potential cybercrime victims, she also suggests doctors be careful about their tone and their attitude. “Don’t shame someone for becoming a victim because it happens to everyone.”
When patients show signs of victimization, physicians could consider asking about their Internet use, social media practices, and general safety surrounding their finances.
They should emphasize the importance of protecting accounts through strong passwords, multifactor authentication when possible, and avoidance of sharing personal information with anyone who calls, emails, or texts.
Clinicians might also consider asking patients to review bills for new or unusual charges, check their bank account statements for withdrawals they didn’t make, and review credit reports for accounts in their name they don’t recognize.
Clinicians should also encourage patients to have a healthcare proxy, power of attorney, and advanced directives and recommend resources that can help victims. These include:
Federal Trade Commission (to report identity theft): https://reportfraud.ftc.gov; https://www.identitytheft.gov
Federal Bureau of Investigation – Internet Crime and Complaint Center https://www.ic3.gov
National Elder Fraud Hotline (1-833-372-8311) or 1-833-FRAUD-11
http://ovc.ojp.gov/program/stop-elder-fraud/providing-help-restoring-hope
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Seniors are increasingly targeted in ever-sophisticated online financial cybercrimes, but mental health clinicians can play a key role in protecting their patients.
Elizabeth J. Santos, MD, clinical chief, Division of Geriatric Mental Health & Memory Care, and associate professor of psychiatry, neurology & medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, provided tips to attendees of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 Annual Meeting, and elaborated on these for this news organization.
Cybercrimes targeting seniors are common. A 2023 University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging found 75% of adults aged 50-80 years experienced a fraud attempt either online or by phone, text, email, or mail in the past 2 years.
The poll found about 30% of respondents reported experiencing financial fraud, which could involve compromising credit cards, hacking bank accounts, or identity theft.
Older age is a risk factor for cybercrime. Seniors may have lower cognitive functioning and/or impaired decision-making. In addition, they are often socially isolated, dependent on others, and have poor health and financial literacy.
Romance Scams Common
Romance scams are another common financial fraud. Stephanie Garayalde, MD, a geriatric psychiatrist at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and another presenter at the APA session, used the example of Mr. L, a 74-year-old outpatient under treatment for depression who was unable to pay his rent.
Mr. L was giving money to his “girlfriend” he met online. Their relationship was totally virtual; she always had constant excuses for not meeting in person. He was funneling increasing funds to pay what he believed were medical bills and to bail her out of various other emergencies.
Once the fraud was discovered, Mr. L not only felt the loneliness of a lost romantic connection but also grappled with feelings of embarrassment and guilt.
“I see older patients who have been scammed who feel ashamed that they haven’t left enough money for their families,” said Dr. Santos.
Another well-known scam targets grandparents. Fraudsters sometimes use an artificial intelligence–generated voice mimicking a young family member and pretend to need money right away for bail or another problem.
In such situations, Dr. Santos advises patients to “hang up and call your family” to verify the call “no matter what the person says or who they sound like.”
Scammers may impersonate government officials to try to get social insurance information. Dr. Santos stresses the importance of never giving out this information. “If someone says they’re from your bank or a government agency like the IRS, hang up and call the bank or agency yourself.”
Evidence suggests this and other cybercrimes are on the rise. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Internet Crime Complaint Center received 888,000 complaints in 2023, a 10% increase from 2022, and losses of about $12.5 billion, which is a 22% increase over 2022.
It’s not that uncommon for the same older person to be scammed by numerous people and fall for it again and again, said Dr. Santos.
To mitigate the risk to this vulnerable group, researchers at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, are developing a scam screener for the elderly that will provide tools to help doctors screen older adults. The screen will focus on identifying factors that make victims most vulnerable, including seniors’ ability to think critically, a necessary skill for guarding against cybercrime.
Red Flags
In the meantime, Dr. Santos identified red flags for clinicians. Patients may show deviations in their typical behaviors; for example, they may seem sadder, more subdued, or more withdrawn than usual.
As loneliness and isolation can be a signal of victimization, “ask patients about their connectedness and be suspicious if the connectedness is all virtual,” she said.
Learning about the quality of their relationships is also important. “Instead of asking the superficial question of ‘Do you have friends’, ask ‘How do you talk to your friends? Are you actually getting out and meeting them?’”
If patients report they have never actually seen these so-called friends in-person, it should raise a red flag.
Another clue something may be amiss is “needing to be on their device or be home to get a call at a certain time.” Dr. Santos recalled a patient whose cell phone rang constantly during an evaluation, even after she had changed her phone number several times. “The scammers kept tracking her down,” she said.
Patients who are victims of cybercrime may stop taking their medications, fail to follow up on ordered tests, or miss paying for medical services.
Dr. Santos recommended screening for conditions known to be linked to cybercrime victimization such as depression. One of her patients was attending her memory clinic, but their cognitive issues were due to depression, not dementia.
It is important to identify subtle cognitive impairments. Dr. Santos recommended using the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination, which she says is easier to use than the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.
Avoid Shaming
When managing patients who are potential cybercrime victims, she also suggests doctors be careful about their tone and their attitude. “Don’t shame someone for becoming a victim because it happens to everyone.”
When patients show signs of victimization, physicians could consider asking about their Internet use, social media practices, and general safety surrounding their finances.
They should emphasize the importance of protecting accounts through strong passwords, multifactor authentication when possible, and avoidance of sharing personal information with anyone who calls, emails, or texts.
Clinicians might also consider asking patients to review bills for new or unusual charges, check their bank account statements for withdrawals they didn’t make, and review credit reports for accounts in their name they don’t recognize.
Clinicians should also encourage patients to have a healthcare proxy, power of attorney, and advanced directives and recommend resources that can help victims. These include:
Federal Trade Commission (to report identity theft): https://reportfraud.ftc.gov; https://www.identitytheft.gov
Federal Bureau of Investigation – Internet Crime and Complaint Center https://www.ic3.gov
National Elder Fraud Hotline (1-833-372-8311) or 1-833-FRAUD-11
http://ovc.ojp.gov/program/stop-elder-fraud/providing-help-restoring-hope
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Psychiatric Comorbidity Prevalent in Eating Disorders
NEW YORK — Psychiatric comorbidities are highly prevalent in patients with eating disorders (EDs), a large study showed.
In a propensity-matched cohort of young adults with and without EDs, a wide variety of psychiatric disorders including depression and anxiety, as well as cannabis and alcohol use disorders, were more common in those with EDs, investigators found.
Comorbid psychiatric disorders should be “top of mind when working with someone with an eating disorder. If you are able to treat the comorbid psychiatric conditions, they might have a better recovery from the eating disorder,” study investigator Angela Liu, MD, with Northwell Health at Zucker Hillside Hospital, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
Data Gap
As previously reported by this news organization, more than one in five children worldwide are at risk for an ED and US medical admissions for adolescents with restrictive EDs more than doubled during the pandemic.
Yet there remains a “gap in the literature” about the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric conditions in people with EDs, specifically in young people, Dr. Liu explained.
“To our knowledge, this is the first study using a real-world, multistate administrative dataset to estimate the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities in young people diagnosed with an eating disorder,” Dr. Liu said.
Using the TriNetX database, the researchers identified through ICD-10 codes 14,524 individuals with EDs (mean age, 15.9 years; 79% women) and 110,051 without EDs who were receiving antidepressants (mean age, 17.8 years; 65% women).
“There was a much higher prevalence of almost all other psychiatric conditions in those with an eating disorder compared to the general psychiatry population,” coinvestigator Binx Y. Lin, MD, MSc, with Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke, Virginia, told this news organization.
In the baseline comparison (before matching), psychiatric disorders seen more often in adults with than in those without EDs included (but were not limited to) mood disorders (51% vs 23%), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; 30% vs 8%), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; 10% vs 2%), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD; 8% vs 1%), panic disorder (6% vs 2%), substance use disorder (8% vs 5%), and adjustment disorders (5% vs 2%).
The results held after propensity score matching, with numerous psychiatric conditions significantly (P < .001) more prevalent in the ED cohort.
Understanding the burden of comorbid psychiatric disorders in young people with EDs is important to design comprehensive, evidence-based interventions, the researchers said.
Providing perspective on this topic, Petros Levounis, MD, professor and chair, Department of Psychiatry, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, noted that “comorbidity between substance use disorders and other psychiatric disorders has both been grossly underestimated and grossly overestimated.
“I go around the country and see rehab programs, and there are people that very strongly believe that if you stop using the drugs, you won’t have problems with depression or anxiety or whatever,” Dr. Levounis, immediate past president of the APA, shared with this news organization.
“Others say they have never seen somebody who’s addicted to something that doesn’t also have some other psychiatric disorders and if you just scratch the surface, you always find some other psychological or psychiatric problem lying behind. Neither of them are true,” he cautioned.
Dr. Levounis said it’s important to recognize that “some people with addiction will also have another psychiatric disorder. But clearly there are people who just have a mental illness without addiction, and there are clearly people who will just have addiction without other mental illness.”
This research had no commercial funding and was supported in part by the American Psychiatric Association Research Fellowship. Dr. Liu, Dr. Lin, and Dr. Levounis had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
NEW YORK — Psychiatric comorbidities are highly prevalent in patients with eating disorders (EDs), a large study showed.
In a propensity-matched cohort of young adults with and without EDs, a wide variety of psychiatric disorders including depression and anxiety, as well as cannabis and alcohol use disorders, were more common in those with EDs, investigators found.
Comorbid psychiatric disorders should be “top of mind when working with someone with an eating disorder. If you are able to treat the comorbid psychiatric conditions, they might have a better recovery from the eating disorder,” study investigator Angela Liu, MD, with Northwell Health at Zucker Hillside Hospital, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
Data Gap
As previously reported by this news organization, more than one in five children worldwide are at risk for an ED and US medical admissions for adolescents with restrictive EDs more than doubled during the pandemic.
Yet there remains a “gap in the literature” about the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric conditions in people with EDs, specifically in young people, Dr. Liu explained.
“To our knowledge, this is the first study using a real-world, multistate administrative dataset to estimate the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities in young people diagnosed with an eating disorder,” Dr. Liu said.
Using the TriNetX database, the researchers identified through ICD-10 codes 14,524 individuals with EDs (mean age, 15.9 years; 79% women) and 110,051 without EDs who were receiving antidepressants (mean age, 17.8 years; 65% women).
“There was a much higher prevalence of almost all other psychiatric conditions in those with an eating disorder compared to the general psychiatry population,” coinvestigator Binx Y. Lin, MD, MSc, with Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke, Virginia, told this news organization.
In the baseline comparison (before matching), psychiatric disorders seen more often in adults with than in those without EDs included (but were not limited to) mood disorders (51% vs 23%), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; 30% vs 8%), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; 10% vs 2%), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD; 8% vs 1%), panic disorder (6% vs 2%), substance use disorder (8% vs 5%), and adjustment disorders (5% vs 2%).
The results held after propensity score matching, with numerous psychiatric conditions significantly (P < .001) more prevalent in the ED cohort.
Understanding the burden of comorbid psychiatric disorders in young people with EDs is important to design comprehensive, evidence-based interventions, the researchers said.
Providing perspective on this topic, Petros Levounis, MD, professor and chair, Department of Psychiatry, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, noted that “comorbidity between substance use disorders and other psychiatric disorders has both been grossly underestimated and grossly overestimated.
“I go around the country and see rehab programs, and there are people that very strongly believe that if you stop using the drugs, you won’t have problems with depression or anxiety or whatever,” Dr. Levounis, immediate past president of the APA, shared with this news organization.
“Others say they have never seen somebody who’s addicted to something that doesn’t also have some other psychiatric disorders and if you just scratch the surface, you always find some other psychological or psychiatric problem lying behind. Neither of them are true,” he cautioned.
Dr. Levounis said it’s important to recognize that “some people with addiction will also have another psychiatric disorder. But clearly there are people who just have a mental illness without addiction, and there are clearly people who will just have addiction without other mental illness.”
This research had no commercial funding and was supported in part by the American Psychiatric Association Research Fellowship. Dr. Liu, Dr. Lin, and Dr. Levounis had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
NEW YORK — Psychiatric comorbidities are highly prevalent in patients with eating disorders (EDs), a large study showed.
In a propensity-matched cohort of young adults with and without EDs, a wide variety of psychiatric disorders including depression and anxiety, as well as cannabis and alcohol use disorders, were more common in those with EDs, investigators found.
Comorbid psychiatric disorders should be “top of mind when working with someone with an eating disorder. If you are able to treat the comorbid psychiatric conditions, they might have a better recovery from the eating disorder,” study investigator Angela Liu, MD, with Northwell Health at Zucker Hillside Hospital, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
Data Gap
As previously reported by this news organization, more than one in five children worldwide are at risk for an ED and US medical admissions for adolescents with restrictive EDs more than doubled during the pandemic.
Yet there remains a “gap in the literature” about the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric conditions in people with EDs, specifically in young people, Dr. Liu explained.
“To our knowledge, this is the first study using a real-world, multistate administrative dataset to estimate the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities in young people diagnosed with an eating disorder,” Dr. Liu said.
Using the TriNetX database, the researchers identified through ICD-10 codes 14,524 individuals with EDs (mean age, 15.9 years; 79% women) and 110,051 without EDs who were receiving antidepressants (mean age, 17.8 years; 65% women).
“There was a much higher prevalence of almost all other psychiatric conditions in those with an eating disorder compared to the general psychiatry population,” coinvestigator Binx Y. Lin, MD, MSc, with Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke, Virginia, told this news organization.
In the baseline comparison (before matching), psychiatric disorders seen more often in adults with than in those without EDs included (but were not limited to) mood disorders (51% vs 23%), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; 30% vs 8%), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; 10% vs 2%), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD; 8% vs 1%), panic disorder (6% vs 2%), substance use disorder (8% vs 5%), and adjustment disorders (5% vs 2%).
The results held after propensity score matching, with numerous psychiatric conditions significantly (P < .001) more prevalent in the ED cohort.
Understanding the burden of comorbid psychiatric disorders in young people with EDs is important to design comprehensive, evidence-based interventions, the researchers said.
Providing perspective on this topic, Petros Levounis, MD, professor and chair, Department of Psychiatry, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, noted that “comorbidity between substance use disorders and other psychiatric disorders has both been grossly underestimated and grossly overestimated.
“I go around the country and see rehab programs, and there are people that very strongly believe that if you stop using the drugs, you won’t have problems with depression or anxiety or whatever,” Dr. Levounis, immediate past president of the APA, shared with this news organization.
“Others say they have never seen somebody who’s addicted to something that doesn’t also have some other psychiatric disorders and if you just scratch the surface, you always find some other psychological or psychiatric problem lying behind. Neither of them are true,” he cautioned.
Dr. Levounis said it’s important to recognize that “some people with addiction will also have another psychiatric disorder. But clearly there are people who just have a mental illness without addiction, and there are clearly people who will just have addiction without other mental illness.”
This research had no commercial funding and was supported in part by the American Psychiatric Association Research Fellowship. Dr. Liu, Dr. Lin, and Dr. Levounis had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Serious Mental Illness Tied to Multiple Physical Illnesses
Serious mental illness (SMI), including bipolar disorder or schizophrenia spectrum disorders, is associated with a twofold increased risk for comorbid physical illness, results of a new meta-analysis showed.
“Although treatment of physical and mental health remains siloed in many health services globally, the high prevalence of physical multimorbidity attests to the urgent need for integrated care models that address both physical and mental health outcomes in people with severe mental illness,” the authors, led by Sean Halstead, MD, of The University of Queensland Medical School in Brisbane, Australia, wrote.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
Shorter Lifespan?
SMI is associated with reduced life expectancy, and experts speculate that additional chronic illnesses — whether physical or psychiatric — may underlie this association.
While previous research has paired SMI with comorbid physical illnesses, the researchers noted that this study is the first to focus on both physical and psychiatric multimorbidity in individuals with SMI.
The investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 82 observational studies comprising 1.6 million individuals with SMI and 13.2 million control subjects to determine the risk for physical or psychiatric multimorbidity.
Studies were included if participants were diagnosed with either a schizophrenia spectrum disorder or bipolar disorder, and the study assessed either physical multimorbidity (at least two physical health conditions) or psychiatric multimorbidity (at least three psychiatric conditions), including the initial SMI.
Investigators found that individuals with SMI had more than a twofold increased risk for physical multimorbidity than those without SMI (odds ratio [OR], 2.40; 95% CI, 1.57-3.65; P = .0009).
Physical multimorbidity, which included cardiovascular, endocrine, neurological rental, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and infectious disorders, was prevalent at similar rates in both schizophrenia spectrum disorder and bipolar disorder.
The ratio of physical multimorbidity was about four times higher in younger populations with SMI (mean age ≤ 40; OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.43-11.10) than in older populations (mean age > 40; OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.96-2.51; subgroup differences, P = .0013).
In terms of absolute prevalence, 25% of those with SMI had a physical multimorbidity, and 14% had a psychiatric multimorbidity, which were primarily anxiety and substance use disorders.
Investigators speculated that physical multimorbidity in SMI could stem from side effects of psychotropic medications, which are known to cause rapid cardiometabolic changes, including weight gain. In addition, lifestyle factors or nonmodifiable risk factors could also contribute to physical multimorbidity.
The study’s limitations included its small sample sizes for subgroup analyses and insufficient analysis for significant covariates, including smoking rates and symptom severity.
“While health services and treatment guidelines often operate on the assumption that individuals have a single principal diagnosis, these results attest to the clinical complexity many people with severe mental illness face in relation to burden of chronic disease,” the investigators wrote. They added that a greater understanding of the epidemiological manifestations of multimorbidity in SMI is “imperative.”
There was no source of funding for this study. Dr. Halstead is supported by the Australian Research Training Program scholarship. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Serious mental illness (SMI), including bipolar disorder or schizophrenia spectrum disorders, is associated with a twofold increased risk for comorbid physical illness, results of a new meta-analysis showed.
“Although treatment of physical and mental health remains siloed in many health services globally, the high prevalence of physical multimorbidity attests to the urgent need for integrated care models that address both physical and mental health outcomes in people with severe mental illness,” the authors, led by Sean Halstead, MD, of The University of Queensland Medical School in Brisbane, Australia, wrote.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
Shorter Lifespan?
SMI is associated with reduced life expectancy, and experts speculate that additional chronic illnesses — whether physical or psychiatric — may underlie this association.
While previous research has paired SMI with comorbid physical illnesses, the researchers noted that this study is the first to focus on both physical and psychiatric multimorbidity in individuals with SMI.
The investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 82 observational studies comprising 1.6 million individuals with SMI and 13.2 million control subjects to determine the risk for physical or psychiatric multimorbidity.
Studies were included if participants were diagnosed with either a schizophrenia spectrum disorder or bipolar disorder, and the study assessed either physical multimorbidity (at least two physical health conditions) or psychiatric multimorbidity (at least three psychiatric conditions), including the initial SMI.
Investigators found that individuals with SMI had more than a twofold increased risk for physical multimorbidity than those without SMI (odds ratio [OR], 2.40; 95% CI, 1.57-3.65; P = .0009).
Physical multimorbidity, which included cardiovascular, endocrine, neurological rental, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and infectious disorders, was prevalent at similar rates in both schizophrenia spectrum disorder and bipolar disorder.
The ratio of physical multimorbidity was about four times higher in younger populations with SMI (mean age ≤ 40; OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.43-11.10) than in older populations (mean age > 40; OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.96-2.51; subgroup differences, P = .0013).
In terms of absolute prevalence, 25% of those with SMI had a physical multimorbidity, and 14% had a psychiatric multimorbidity, which were primarily anxiety and substance use disorders.
Investigators speculated that physical multimorbidity in SMI could stem from side effects of psychotropic medications, which are known to cause rapid cardiometabolic changes, including weight gain. In addition, lifestyle factors or nonmodifiable risk factors could also contribute to physical multimorbidity.
The study’s limitations included its small sample sizes for subgroup analyses and insufficient analysis for significant covariates, including smoking rates and symptom severity.
“While health services and treatment guidelines often operate on the assumption that individuals have a single principal diagnosis, these results attest to the clinical complexity many people with severe mental illness face in relation to burden of chronic disease,” the investigators wrote. They added that a greater understanding of the epidemiological manifestations of multimorbidity in SMI is “imperative.”
There was no source of funding for this study. Dr. Halstead is supported by the Australian Research Training Program scholarship. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Serious mental illness (SMI), including bipolar disorder or schizophrenia spectrum disorders, is associated with a twofold increased risk for comorbid physical illness, results of a new meta-analysis showed.
“Although treatment of physical and mental health remains siloed in many health services globally, the high prevalence of physical multimorbidity attests to the urgent need for integrated care models that address both physical and mental health outcomes in people with severe mental illness,” the authors, led by Sean Halstead, MD, of The University of Queensland Medical School in Brisbane, Australia, wrote.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
Shorter Lifespan?
SMI is associated with reduced life expectancy, and experts speculate that additional chronic illnesses — whether physical or psychiatric — may underlie this association.
While previous research has paired SMI with comorbid physical illnesses, the researchers noted that this study is the first to focus on both physical and psychiatric multimorbidity in individuals with SMI.
The investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 82 observational studies comprising 1.6 million individuals with SMI and 13.2 million control subjects to determine the risk for physical or psychiatric multimorbidity.
Studies were included if participants were diagnosed with either a schizophrenia spectrum disorder or bipolar disorder, and the study assessed either physical multimorbidity (at least two physical health conditions) or psychiatric multimorbidity (at least three psychiatric conditions), including the initial SMI.
Investigators found that individuals with SMI had more than a twofold increased risk for physical multimorbidity than those without SMI (odds ratio [OR], 2.40; 95% CI, 1.57-3.65; P = .0009).
Physical multimorbidity, which included cardiovascular, endocrine, neurological rental, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and infectious disorders, was prevalent at similar rates in both schizophrenia spectrum disorder and bipolar disorder.
The ratio of physical multimorbidity was about four times higher in younger populations with SMI (mean age ≤ 40; OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.43-11.10) than in older populations (mean age > 40; OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.96-2.51; subgroup differences, P = .0013).
In terms of absolute prevalence, 25% of those with SMI had a physical multimorbidity, and 14% had a psychiatric multimorbidity, which were primarily anxiety and substance use disorders.
Investigators speculated that physical multimorbidity in SMI could stem from side effects of psychotropic medications, which are known to cause rapid cardiometabolic changes, including weight gain. In addition, lifestyle factors or nonmodifiable risk factors could also contribute to physical multimorbidity.
The study’s limitations included its small sample sizes for subgroup analyses and insufficient analysis for significant covariates, including smoking rates and symptom severity.
“While health services and treatment guidelines often operate on the assumption that individuals have a single principal diagnosis, these results attest to the clinical complexity many people with severe mental illness face in relation to burden of chronic disease,” the investigators wrote. They added that a greater understanding of the epidemiological manifestations of multimorbidity in SMI is “imperative.”
There was no source of funding for this study. Dr. Halstead is supported by the Australian Research Training Program scholarship. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY