Donavyn Coffey

By February of 2022, Ella, a 25-year-old behavioral interventionist in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sick with strep-like symptoms for the third time in 3 months. She didn’t bother to call her doctor.

The first two times she had strep throat, she’d tried to schedule an appointment with her newest primary care doctor but couldn’t get in. They only had available appointments 5 and even 10 days out, but she’d already had symptoms for 3 days.

Until she graduated college, Ella had only known easy-access primary care. Her childhood family doctor and the nurse practitioners at her college clinic knew her. They anticipated her yearly allergies and knew about her predisposition for strep throat. Appointments were easy to schedule, and providers responded to her messages. But since entering the workforce and leaving her parent’s insurance, the kind of primary care she’d come to rely on was nearly impossible to find.

“I went to urgent care, and that became my primary care,” she told this news organization.
 

Patients Can’t Get Appointments

Primary care is in crisis. A growing number of Americans, like Ella, can’t access care when they need it. According to a 2024 report, 29% of adults and 14% of children don’t have a regular source of care. Those looking for a new primary care provider face extensive research and 6- to 9-month waits for a new patient appointment — if they can get in at all.

But even those with a primary care provider face long wait times: Days to weeks for a sick visit and months for a wellness checkup. Over one third of Medicare beneficiaries wait more than a month to see a doctor. Accessing primary care is more difficult than access to surgery, physical therapy, or rehabilitative care, according to a survey of Medicare beneficiaries by the Commonwealth Fund.

“Shortages tend to be in rural and urban underserved areas, but now, you’re hearing about primary care shortages in Boston, which is a mecca of healthcare,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Coalition.

While retail clinics, urgent care, and telehealth help close the gap in acute needs, they miss one of primary care’s most critical benefits: A doctor who knows you. There’s strong evidence that ongoing treatment from a primary care physician (PCP) who knows your history, family, and context results in better long-term outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

If patients continue to find it too hard to break into primary care or set up an appointment, experts are concerned that they’ll stop pursuing primary care altogether.
 

Doctors’ Hands Are Tied

“I want to highlight that this is not an issue of primary care doctors not wanting to be accessible,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, a PCP and medical director of Ambulatory Quality and Safety at the University of California San Francisco Health. “These access issues are symptoms of the design of primary care in the United States.”

Across the United States, there’s a dearth of family medicine doctors, pediatricians, and internists. And without significantly more primary care providers, there’s simply no way for all Americans to get optimal primary care. The Health Resources and Services administration estimates a current shortage of 13,000 primary care providers. And that shortage will skyrocket to 68,000 by 2036 as the number of Americans needing care balloons and existing PCPs retire with too few trainees to fill their shoes.

The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts a slightly lower shortage in 2036 — between 20,000 and 40,000 primary care physicians — only if more residency positions are funded nationwide.

However, even with more positions, medical trainees see little incentive to pursue primary care. Young doctors are avoiding primary care because of the pressures, Dr. Rotenstein said. There’s incredible pressure to get reimbursement for primary care doctors. And the added administrative burden makes “the work life of these specialties not really manageable,” she said.
 

Continued Shortages of PCPs

“We know there’s a documented pajama time,” Ms. Greiner said. For every 1 hour spent with a patient, primary care must spend nearly 2 additional hours on electronic health records and desk work, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Even with all those additional hours devoted to getting paid, primary care doctors make an average of $103,000 less annually compared with their counterparts in surgery and oncology.

It’s not an attractive combination for a new doctor with medical debt. This year, Ms. Greiner said that residency positions in internal medicine and pediatrics went unfilled. Of those trainees who do go into a primary care specialty, many won’t last. Only half of primary care residents practice in primary care 3-5 years later. The rest choose to subspecialize or become hospitalists.

These untenable demands on a primary care provider don’t go unnoticed by patients. In Ella’s attempts to invest in a new primary care relationship, she often doesn’t feel heard and can tell the doctor is rushed. “[Urgent care is] probably not the best care because they don’t know me, but it does seem like they are able to listen to me better,” Ella said.
 

Patients Want to Invest in Primary Care

Primary care should work like putting money in a bank account, Dr. Rotenstein said. Young patients invest in the relationship and reap the benefits of a doctor who knows them later in life when they need more complex care. But if seeing a doctor is so difficult, many young people may stop investing in their PCP relationship.

“One thing ... that I worry about in this kind of situation where patients really have to put in a lot of work to get the care they need is in inequities of care,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “We know some of our patients are more able to undertake that work.”

Alternatively, the primary care shortage could be reshaping how patients seek care. A 2023 study showed the proportion of primary care preventative visits increased over 20 years. Policies under the Affordable Care Act were the driving force. But it’s also true that sick visits are being diverted to urgent care.

Ella told this news organization she doesn’t even consider primary care for sick visits at this point. “I can’t wait 5 days or a week and a half. Unless I have bigger issues, like I need tests, I’m not even going to go to primary care.” It’s possible that other patients also see primary care as a place for testing and wellness checks and leave sick visits to retail and urgent care.
 

The Road Ahead

There’s no single fix for primary care, but experts agree that the fee-for-service model is a core issue for the specialty. In a 2021 report, the National Association of Engineering and Medicine said that primary care reform needs to include higher reimbursement rates for primary care and that US primary care should be restructured so that payers “pay primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.”

In the current model, the doctor-patient clinic time is the only income-generating part of a primary care practice. A better model would consider the communication, administration, teams, and support doctors have to fund to provide the best primary care.

“We need to change how we pay and how much we pay, so [primary care doctors] are properly incentivized to build out a team to provide the comprehensive care you need,” Ms. Greiner said.

In the meantime, primary care doctors are adapting. Some drop down to part-time to account for the additional administrative workload. Others are transitioning to concierge services to offer the quality of care they want while getting the income they need. Still, others specialize their practice, offering primary care to a subset of the population, like older adults.

Employers are also looking to improve care access for their employees, hiring in-house doctors to provide primary care on site. Ms. Greiner recently met with a group of chief medical officers from major companies to discuss expanding primary care access via the workplace.

The efforts to adapt amid a broken system are admirable, Dr. Rotenstein said. And whatever a PCP has to do to keep practicing in primary care is laudable. The only problem with these adaptations is they largely limit a doctor’s patient pool and, therefore, limit access, she said. More significant reforms that adequately reimburse primary care and incentivize new doctors are still needed.

As for Ella, she got married. Her wife is in the military, so now she has Tricare, which comes with a more streamlined process to access primary care. However, doctor shortages are just as evident in that system. The couple called to schedule new patient appointments after their recent move to Virginia. The first available ones were 6 weeks out.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By February of 2022, Ella, a 25-year-old behavioral interventionist in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sick with strep-like symptoms for the third time in 3 months. She didn’t bother to call her doctor.

The first two times she had strep throat, she’d tried to schedule an appointment with her newest primary care doctor but couldn’t get in. They only had available appointments 5 and even 10 days out, but she’d already had symptoms for 3 days.

Until she graduated college, Ella had only known easy-access primary care. Her childhood family doctor and the nurse practitioners at her college clinic knew her. They anticipated her yearly allergies and knew about her predisposition for strep throat. Appointments were easy to schedule, and providers responded to her messages. But since entering the workforce and leaving her parent’s insurance, the kind of primary care she’d come to rely on was nearly impossible to find.

“I went to urgent care, and that became my primary care,” she told this news organization.
 

Patients Can’t Get Appointments

Primary care is in crisis. A growing number of Americans, like Ella, can’t access care when they need it. According to a 2024 report, 29% of adults and 14% of children don’t have a regular source of care. Those looking for a new primary care provider face extensive research and 6- to 9-month waits for a new patient appointment — if they can get in at all.

But even those with a primary care provider face long wait times: Days to weeks for a sick visit and months for a wellness checkup. Over one third of Medicare beneficiaries wait more than a month to see a doctor. Accessing primary care is more difficult than access to surgery, physical therapy, or rehabilitative care, according to a survey of Medicare beneficiaries by the Commonwealth Fund.

“Shortages tend to be in rural and urban underserved areas, but now, you’re hearing about primary care shortages in Boston, which is a mecca of healthcare,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Coalition.

While retail clinics, urgent care, and telehealth help close the gap in acute needs, they miss one of primary care’s most critical benefits: A doctor who knows you. There’s strong evidence that ongoing treatment from a primary care physician (PCP) who knows your history, family, and context results in better long-term outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

If patients continue to find it too hard to break into primary care or set up an appointment, experts are concerned that they’ll stop pursuing primary care altogether.
 

Doctors’ Hands Are Tied

“I want to highlight that this is not an issue of primary care doctors not wanting to be accessible,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, a PCP and medical director of Ambulatory Quality and Safety at the University of California San Francisco Health. “These access issues are symptoms of the design of primary care in the United States.”

Across the United States, there’s a dearth of family medicine doctors, pediatricians, and internists. And without significantly more primary care providers, there’s simply no way for all Americans to get optimal primary care. The Health Resources and Services administration estimates a current shortage of 13,000 primary care providers. And that shortage will skyrocket to 68,000 by 2036 as the number of Americans needing care balloons and existing PCPs retire with too few trainees to fill their shoes.

The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts a slightly lower shortage in 2036 — between 20,000 and 40,000 primary care physicians — only if more residency positions are funded nationwide.

However, even with more positions, medical trainees see little incentive to pursue primary care. Young doctors are avoiding primary care because of the pressures, Dr. Rotenstein said. There’s incredible pressure to get reimbursement for primary care doctors. And the added administrative burden makes “the work life of these specialties not really manageable,” she said.
 

Continued Shortages of PCPs

“We know there’s a documented pajama time,” Ms. Greiner said. For every 1 hour spent with a patient, primary care must spend nearly 2 additional hours on electronic health records and desk work, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Even with all those additional hours devoted to getting paid, primary care doctors make an average of $103,000 less annually compared with their counterparts in surgery and oncology.

It’s not an attractive combination for a new doctor with medical debt. This year, Ms. Greiner said that residency positions in internal medicine and pediatrics went unfilled. Of those trainees who do go into a primary care specialty, many won’t last. Only half of primary care residents practice in primary care 3-5 years later. The rest choose to subspecialize or become hospitalists.

These untenable demands on a primary care provider don’t go unnoticed by patients. In Ella’s attempts to invest in a new primary care relationship, she often doesn’t feel heard and can tell the doctor is rushed. “[Urgent care is] probably not the best care because they don’t know me, but it does seem like they are able to listen to me better,” Ella said.
 

Patients Want to Invest in Primary Care

Primary care should work like putting money in a bank account, Dr. Rotenstein said. Young patients invest in the relationship and reap the benefits of a doctor who knows them later in life when they need more complex care. But if seeing a doctor is so difficult, many young people may stop investing in their PCP relationship.

“One thing ... that I worry about in this kind of situation where patients really have to put in a lot of work to get the care they need is in inequities of care,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “We know some of our patients are more able to undertake that work.”

Alternatively, the primary care shortage could be reshaping how patients seek care. A 2023 study showed the proportion of primary care preventative visits increased over 20 years. Policies under the Affordable Care Act were the driving force. But it’s also true that sick visits are being diverted to urgent care.

Ella told this news organization she doesn’t even consider primary care for sick visits at this point. “I can’t wait 5 days or a week and a half. Unless I have bigger issues, like I need tests, I’m not even going to go to primary care.” It’s possible that other patients also see primary care as a place for testing and wellness checks and leave sick visits to retail and urgent care.
 

The Road Ahead

There’s no single fix for primary care, but experts agree that the fee-for-service model is a core issue for the specialty. In a 2021 report, the National Association of Engineering and Medicine said that primary care reform needs to include higher reimbursement rates for primary care and that US primary care should be restructured so that payers “pay primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.”

In the current model, the doctor-patient clinic time is the only income-generating part of a primary care practice. A better model would consider the communication, administration, teams, and support doctors have to fund to provide the best primary care.

“We need to change how we pay and how much we pay, so [primary care doctors] are properly incentivized to build out a team to provide the comprehensive care you need,” Ms. Greiner said.

In the meantime, primary care doctors are adapting. Some drop down to part-time to account for the additional administrative workload. Others are transitioning to concierge services to offer the quality of care they want while getting the income they need. Still, others specialize their practice, offering primary care to a subset of the population, like older adults.

Employers are also looking to improve care access for their employees, hiring in-house doctors to provide primary care on site. Ms. Greiner recently met with a group of chief medical officers from major companies to discuss expanding primary care access via the workplace.

The efforts to adapt amid a broken system are admirable, Dr. Rotenstein said. And whatever a PCP has to do to keep practicing in primary care is laudable. The only problem with these adaptations is they largely limit a doctor’s patient pool and, therefore, limit access, she said. More significant reforms that adequately reimburse primary care and incentivize new doctors are still needed.

As for Ella, she got married. Her wife is in the military, so now she has Tricare, which comes with a more streamlined process to access primary care. However, doctor shortages are just as evident in that system. The couple called to schedule new patient appointments after their recent move to Virginia. The first available ones were 6 weeks out.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By February of 2022, Ella, a 25-year-old behavioral interventionist in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sick with strep-like symptoms for the third time in 3 months. She didn’t bother to call her doctor.

The first two times she had strep throat, she’d tried to schedule an appointment with her newest primary care doctor but couldn’t get in. They only had available appointments 5 and even 10 days out, but she’d already had symptoms for 3 days.

Until she graduated college, Ella had only known easy-access primary care. Her childhood family doctor and the nurse practitioners at her college clinic knew her. They anticipated her yearly allergies and knew about her predisposition for strep throat. Appointments were easy to schedule, and providers responded to her messages. But since entering the workforce and leaving her parent’s insurance, the kind of primary care she’d come to rely on was nearly impossible to find.

“I went to urgent care, and that became my primary care,” she told this news organization.
 

Patients Can’t Get Appointments

Primary care is in crisis. A growing number of Americans, like Ella, can’t access care when they need it. According to a 2024 report, 29% of adults and 14% of children don’t have a regular source of care. Those looking for a new primary care provider face extensive research and 6- to 9-month waits for a new patient appointment — if they can get in at all.

But even those with a primary care provider face long wait times: Days to weeks for a sick visit and months for a wellness checkup. Over one third of Medicare beneficiaries wait more than a month to see a doctor. Accessing primary care is more difficult than access to surgery, physical therapy, or rehabilitative care, according to a survey of Medicare beneficiaries by the Commonwealth Fund.

“Shortages tend to be in rural and urban underserved areas, but now, you’re hearing about primary care shortages in Boston, which is a mecca of healthcare,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Coalition.

While retail clinics, urgent care, and telehealth help close the gap in acute needs, they miss one of primary care’s most critical benefits: A doctor who knows you. There’s strong evidence that ongoing treatment from a primary care physician (PCP) who knows your history, family, and context results in better long-term outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

If patients continue to find it too hard to break into primary care or set up an appointment, experts are concerned that they’ll stop pursuing primary care altogether.
 

Doctors’ Hands Are Tied

“I want to highlight that this is not an issue of primary care doctors not wanting to be accessible,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, a PCP and medical director of Ambulatory Quality and Safety at the University of California San Francisco Health. “These access issues are symptoms of the design of primary care in the United States.”

Across the United States, there’s a dearth of family medicine doctors, pediatricians, and internists. And without significantly more primary care providers, there’s simply no way for all Americans to get optimal primary care. The Health Resources and Services administration estimates a current shortage of 13,000 primary care providers. And that shortage will skyrocket to 68,000 by 2036 as the number of Americans needing care balloons and existing PCPs retire with too few trainees to fill their shoes.

The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts a slightly lower shortage in 2036 — between 20,000 and 40,000 primary care physicians — only if more residency positions are funded nationwide.

However, even with more positions, medical trainees see little incentive to pursue primary care. Young doctors are avoiding primary care because of the pressures, Dr. Rotenstein said. There’s incredible pressure to get reimbursement for primary care doctors. And the added administrative burden makes “the work life of these specialties not really manageable,” she said.
 

Continued Shortages of PCPs

“We know there’s a documented pajama time,” Ms. Greiner said. For every 1 hour spent with a patient, primary care must spend nearly 2 additional hours on electronic health records and desk work, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Even with all those additional hours devoted to getting paid, primary care doctors make an average of $103,000 less annually compared with their counterparts in surgery and oncology.

It’s not an attractive combination for a new doctor with medical debt. This year, Ms. Greiner said that residency positions in internal medicine and pediatrics went unfilled. Of those trainees who do go into a primary care specialty, many won’t last. Only half of primary care residents practice in primary care 3-5 years later. The rest choose to subspecialize or become hospitalists.

These untenable demands on a primary care provider don’t go unnoticed by patients. In Ella’s attempts to invest in a new primary care relationship, she often doesn’t feel heard and can tell the doctor is rushed. “[Urgent care is] probably not the best care because they don’t know me, but it does seem like they are able to listen to me better,” Ella said.
 

Patients Want to Invest in Primary Care

Primary care should work like putting money in a bank account, Dr. Rotenstein said. Young patients invest in the relationship and reap the benefits of a doctor who knows them later in life when they need more complex care. But if seeing a doctor is so difficult, many young people may stop investing in their PCP relationship.

“One thing ... that I worry about in this kind of situation where patients really have to put in a lot of work to get the care they need is in inequities of care,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “We know some of our patients are more able to undertake that work.”

Alternatively, the primary care shortage could be reshaping how patients seek care. A 2023 study showed the proportion of primary care preventative visits increased over 20 years. Policies under the Affordable Care Act were the driving force. But it’s also true that sick visits are being diverted to urgent care.

Ella told this news organization she doesn’t even consider primary care for sick visits at this point. “I can’t wait 5 days or a week and a half. Unless I have bigger issues, like I need tests, I’m not even going to go to primary care.” It’s possible that other patients also see primary care as a place for testing and wellness checks and leave sick visits to retail and urgent care.
 

The Road Ahead

There’s no single fix for primary care, but experts agree that the fee-for-service model is a core issue for the specialty. In a 2021 report, the National Association of Engineering and Medicine said that primary care reform needs to include higher reimbursement rates for primary care and that US primary care should be restructured so that payers “pay primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.”

In the current model, the doctor-patient clinic time is the only income-generating part of a primary care practice. A better model would consider the communication, administration, teams, and support doctors have to fund to provide the best primary care.

“We need to change how we pay and how much we pay, so [primary care doctors] are properly incentivized to build out a team to provide the comprehensive care you need,” Ms. Greiner said.

In the meantime, primary care doctors are adapting. Some drop down to part-time to account for the additional administrative workload. Others are transitioning to concierge services to offer the quality of care they want while getting the income they need. Still, others specialize their practice, offering primary care to a subset of the population, like older adults.

Employers are also looking to improve care access for their employees, hiring in-house doctors to provide primary care on site. Ms. Greiner recently met with a group of chief medical officers from major companies to discuss expanding primary care access via the workplace.

The efforts to adapt amid a broken system are admirable, Dr. Rotenstein said. And whatever a PCP has to do to keep practicing in primary care is laudable. The only problem with these adaptations is they largely limit a doctor’s patient pool and, therefore, limit access, she said. More significant reforms that adequately reimburse primary care and incentivize new doctors are still needed.

As for Ella, she got married. Her wife is in the military, so now she has Tricare, which comes with a more streamlined process to access primary care. However, doctor shortages are just as evident in that system. The couple called to schedule new patient appointments after their recent move to Virginia. The first available ones were 6 weeks out.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In January 2023, Mark Lewis, MD, stood with the door slammed in his face. His partner in the practice had had enough. She accused him of sugarcoating prognoses and leaving her to tell patients the whole truth.

The reality was he just didn’t know how to grieve.

Dr. Lewis was well acquainted with cancer grief long before he became an oncologist. Dr. Lewis’ father died of a rare, hereditary cancer syndrome when he was only 14. The condition, which causes tumors to grow in the endocrine glands, can be hard to identify and, if found late, deadly.

In some ways, Dr. Lewis’ career caring for patients with advanced cancers was born out of that first loss. He centered his practice around helping patients diagnosed at late stages, like his father.

But that comes at a cost. Many patients will die.

Dr. Lewis’ encounter with his colleague led him to inventory his practice. He found that well over half of his patients died within 2 years following their advanced cancer diagnosis.

To stave off the grief of so many losses, Dr. Lewis became an eternal optimist in the clinic, in search of the Hail Mary chemotherapy, any way to eke out a few more months only to be ambushed by grief when a patient did finally pass.

At funerals — which he made every effort to attend — Dr. Lewis couldn’t help but think, “If I had done my job better, none of us with be here.” His grief started to mingle with this sense of guilt.

It became a cycle: Denial shrouded in optimism, grief, then a toxic guilt. The pattern became untenable for his colleagues. And his partner finally called him out.

Few medical specialties draw physicians as close to their patients as oncology. The long courses of treatment-spanning years can foster an intimacy that is comforting for patients and fulfilling for physicians. But that closeness can also set doctors up for an acute grief when the end of life comes.

Experts agree that no amount of training in medical school prepares an oncologist to navigate the grief that comes with losing patients. Five oncologists spoke with this news organization about the boundaries they rely on to sustain their careers.
 

Don’t Go to Funerals

Don Dizon, MD, who specializes in women’s cancers, established an essential boundary 20 years ago: Never go to funerals. In his early days at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the death of each patient dealt him a crushing blow. He’d go to the funerals in search of closure, but that only added to the weight of his grief.

“When I started in oncology, I just remember the most tragic cases were the ones I was taking care of,” recalled Dr. Dizon, now director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Lincoln, Rhode Island.

Dr. Dizon recalled one young mother who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She responded to treatment, but it was short-lived, and her cancer progressed, he said. Multiple treatments followed, but none were effective. Eventually, Dr. Dizon had to tell her that “there’s nothing left to try.”

At her funeral, watching her grieving husband with their daughter who had just started to walk, Dr. Dizon was overwhelmed with despair.

“When you have to do this multiple times a year,” the grief becomes untenable, he said. Sensing the difficulty I was having as a new attending, “my boss stopped sending me patients because he knew I was in trouble emotionally.”

That’s when Dr. Dizon started looking for other ways to get closure.

Today, he tries to say his goodbyes before a patient dies. After the final treatment or before hospice, Dr. Dizon has a parting conversation with his patients to express the privilege of caring for them and all he learned from them. These talks help him and his patient connect in their last moments together.
 

The Price of Wildly Happy Days

Molly Taylor, MD, MS, a pediatric oncologist in Seattle, sees the deeply sad days as the price an oncologist pays to be witness to the “wildly happy ones.”

Dr. Taylor has gone to patients’ funerals, has even been asked to speak at them, but she has also attended patients’ weddings.

To some degree, doctors get good at compartmentalizing, and they become accustomed to tragedy, she said. But there are some patients who stick with you, “and that is a whole other level of grief,” Dr. Taylor said.

Several years into her practice, one of Dr. Taylor’s patients, someone who reminded her of her own child, died. The death came as a surprise, and the finality of it took her breath away, she said. The sadness only deepened as days went by. “I felt that mother’s grief and still do,” she said.

The patient’s funeral was one of the most difficult moments in her career as an oncologist. Even weeks later, she caught herself picturing the family huddled together that day.

Taking long walks, commiserating with colleagues who get it, and watching the occasional cat video can help take the immediate sting away. But the pain of losing a patient can be long lasting and processing that grief can be a lonely endeavor.

“We need space to recognize grief for all providers, all the people that touch these patients’ lives — the nurses, the translators, the cleaning staff,” Dr. Taylor said. Otherwise, you start to believe you’re the only one feeling the weight of the loss.

While it doesn’t make the losses any less poignant, Dr. Taylor finds solace in the good moments: Patient graduations and weddings, survivors who now volunteer at the hospital, and a patient who had a baby of her own this past year. If facing grief daily has taught Dr. Taylor anything, it is to not let the good moments pass unnoticed.
 

Towing the Line

Ten years ago, Tina Rizack, MD, walked into the ICU to see a young mother holding her 6-year-old daughter. The mother had necrotizing fasciitis that had gone undiagnosed.

As Dr. Rizack stood in the doorway watching the embrace, she saw a grim future: A child without her mother. This realization hit too close to home, she said. “I still think about that case.”

In her training, Dr. Rizack, now medical director of hematology/oncology at St. Anne’s in Fall River, Massachusetts, worked with a social worker who taught her how to deal with these tough cases — most importantly, how to not take them home with her.

Over the years, Dr. Rizack learned how to build and sustain a firm barrier between work and outside work.

She doesn’t go to funerals or give out her cell phone number. If charts need to be done, she prefers to stay late at the clinic instead of bringing them home.

And she invests in the simple moments that help her detach from the day-to-day in the clinic — rooting for her kids at their games, carving out time for family meals most days, and having relaxed movie nights on the couch.

“It’s hard sometimes,” she said. But “I really do need the line.” Because without it, she can’t show up for her patients the way she wants and needs to.

Establishing the work-life boundary means that when at work, Dr. Rizack can be all in for her patients. Even after her patients’ treatment ends, she makes sure to check on them at home or in hospice. For her, sticking with patients over the long term offers some closure.

“I want to love work, and if I’m there all the time, I’m not going to love it,” she said.
 

Trading Funerals for the Bedside

Like many other oncologists, Charles Blanke, MD, finds that going to patients’ funerals makes the loss seem more profound. Being at the bedside when they die is not as painful, he said. In fact, being there when his patients die offers him some comfort. He rarely misses a patient’s death because now Dr. Blanke’s patients can schedule their departure.

An oncologist at the Knight Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon, Dr. Blanke specializes in end-of-life care with an emphasis on death with dignity, also known as medical aid in dying. He admits it’s not a role every physician is comfortable with.

“If you’re paralyzed by grief, you can’t do this for a living,” he said. But he’s able to do the work because he genuinely feels he’s helping patients get “the relief they so strongly desire” in their last moments.

When cancer care can’t give them the life they wanted, he can give them control over when and how they die. And the ability to honor their last wishes offers him some closure as well.

“You know what kind of end they have. You know it was peaceful. You see them achieve the thing that was the most important to them,” he said.

Despite this process, he still encounters some circumstances utterly heart-wrenching — the very young patients who have advanced disease. Some of these patients choose to die because they can’t afford to continue treatment. Others don’t have a support system. In these instances, Dr. Blanke is often the only one in the room.

Believe it or not, he said, the paperwork — and there’s a lot of it in his line of work — helps remind Dr. Blanke that patients’ last wishes are being honored.
 

Making Changes

After Dr. Lewis was confronted by his partner, he began to face the shortcomings of his own coping strategies. His practice hired a social worker to help staff process difficult experiences. After the loss of every patient, the practice comes together to share and process the loss.

For him, funerals remain helpful, providing a sort of solace, so he continues to go when he can. But how to grieve is something each doctor has to figure out, he said.

Deaths still hit hard, especially the ones he doesn’t see coming. The patients who remind him of his dad can also be hard. They restart a cycle of grief from his teenage years.

The difference now is he has space to voice those concerns and someone objective to help his process.

“It’s a privilege to prepare [patients for death] and help them build their legacy,” he said. But it’s also an unrelenting challenge to navigate that grief, he said.

Still, the grief lets Dr. Lewis know he’s still engaged.

“The day I don’t feel something is probably the day I need to take a break or walk away.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In January 2023, Mark Lewis, MD, stood with the door slammed in his face. His partner in the practice had had enough. She accused him of sugarcoating prognoses and leaving her to tell patients the whole truth.

The reality was he just didn’t know how to grieve.

Dr. Lewis was well acquainted with cancer grief long before he became an oncologist. Dr. Lewis’ father died of a rare, hereditary cancer syndrome when he was only 14. The condition, which causes tumors to grow in the endocrine glands, can be hard to identify and, if found late, deadly.

In some ways, Dr. Lewis’ career caring for patients with advanced cancers was born out of that first loss. He centered his practice around helping patients diagnosed at late stages, like his father.

But that comes at a cost. Many patients will die.

Dr. Lewis’ encounter with his colleague led him to inventory his practice. He found that well over half of his patients died within 2 years following their advanced cancer diagnosis.

To stave off the grief of so many losses, Dr. Lewis became an eternal optimist in the clinic, in search of the Hail Mary chemotherapy, any way to eke out a few more months only to be ambushed by grief when a patient did finally pass.

At funerals — which he made every effort to attend — Dr. Lewis couldn’t help but think, “If I had done my job better, none of us with be here.” His grief started to mingle with this sense of guilt.

It became a cycle: Denial shrouded in optimism, grief, then a toxic guilt. The pattern became untenable for his colleagues. And his partner finally called him out.

Few medical specialties draw physicians as close to their patients as oncology. The long courses of treatment-spanning years can foster an intimacy that is comforting for patients and fulfilling for physicians. But that closeness can also set doctors up for an acute grief when the end of life comes.

Experts agree that no amount of training in medical school prepares an oncologist to navigate the grief that comes with losing patients. Five oncologists spoke with this news organization about the boundaries they rely on to sustain their careers.
 

Don’t Go to Funerals

Don Dizon, MD, who specializes in women’s cancers, established an essential boundary 20 years ago: Never go to funerals. In his early days at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the death of each patient dealt him a crushing blow. He’d go to the funerals in search of closure, but that only added to the weight of his grief.

“When I started in oncology, I just remember the most tragic cases were the ones I was taking care of,” recalled Dr. Dizon, now director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Lincoln, Rhode Island.

Dr. Dizon recalled one young mother who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She responded to treatment, but it was short-lived, and her cancer progressed, he said. Multiple treatments followed, but none were effective. Eventually, Dr. Dizon had to tell her that “there’s nothing left to try.”

At her funeral, watching her grieving husband with their daughter who had just started to walk, Dr. Dizon was overwhelmed with despair.

“When you have to do this multiple times a year,” the grief becomes untenable, he said. Sensing the difficulty I was having as a new attending, “my boss stopped sending me patients because he knew I was in trouble emotionally.”

That’s when Dr. Dizon started looking for other ways to get closure.

Today, he tries to say his goodbyes before a patient dies. After the final treatment or before hospice, Dr. Dizon has a parting conversation with his patients to express the privilege of caring for them and all he learned from them. These talks help him and his patient connect in their last moments together.
 

The Price of Wildly Happy Days

Molly Taylor, MD, MS, a pediatric oncologist in Seattle, sees the deeply sad days as the price an oncologist pays to be witness to the “wildly happy ones.”

Dr. Taylor has gone to patients’ funerals, has even been asked to speak at them, but she has also attended patients’ weddings.

To some degree, doctors get good at compartmentalizing, and they become accustomed to tragedy, she said. But there are some patients who stick with you, “and that is a whole other level of grief,” Dr. Taylor said.

Several years into her practice, one of Dr. Taylor’s patients, someone who reminded her of her own child, died. The death came as a surprise, and the finality of it took her breath away, she said. The sadness only deepened as days went by. “I felt that mother’s grief and still do,” she said.

The patient’s funeral was one of the most difficult moments in her career as an oncologist. Even weeks later, she caught herself picturing the family huddled together that day.

Taking long walks, commiserating with colleagues who get it, and watching the occasional cat video can help take the immediate sting away. But the pain of losing a patient can be long lasting and processing that grief can be a lonely endeavor.

“We need space to recognize grief for all providers, all the people that touch these patients’ lives — the nurses, the translators, the cleaning staff,” Dr. Taylor said. Otherwise, you start to believe you’re the only one feeling the weight of the loss.

While it doesn’t make the losses any less poignant, Dr. Taylor finds solace in the good moments: Patient graduations and weddings, survivors who now volunteer at the hospital, and a patient who had a baby of her own this past year. If facing grief daily has taught Dr. Taylor anything, it is to not let the good moments pass unnoticed.
 

Towing the Line

Ten years ago, Tina Rizack, MD, walked into the ICU to see a young mother holding her 6-year-old daughter. The mother had necrotizing fasciitis that had gone undiagnosed.

As Dr. Rizack stood in the doorway watching the embrace, she saw a grim future: A child without her mother. This realization hit too close to home, she said. “I still think about that case.”

In her training, Dr. Rizack, now medical director of hematology/oncology at St. Anne’s in Fall River, Massachusetts, worked with a social worker who taught her how to deal with these tough cases — most importantly, how to not take them home with her.

Over the years, Dr. Rizack learned how to build and sustain a firm barrier between work and outside work.

She doesn’t go to funerals or give out her cell phone number. If charts need to be done, she prefers to stay late at the clinic instead of bringing them home.

And she invests in the simple moments that help her detach from the day-to-day in the clinic — rooting for her kids at their games, carving out time for family meals most days, and having relaxed movie nights on the couch.

“It’s hard sometimes,” she said. But “I really do need the line.” Because without it, she can’t show up for her patients the way she wants and needs to.

Establishing the work-life boundary means that when at work, Dr. Rizack can be all in for her patients. Even after her patients’ treatment ends, she makes sure to check on them at home or in hospice. For her, sticking with patients over the long term offers some closure.

“I want to love work, and if I’m there all the time, I’m not going to love it,” she said.
 

Trading Funerals for the Bedside

Like many other oncologists, Charles Blanke, MD, finds that going to patients’ funerals makes the loss seem more profound. Being at the bedside when they die is not as painful, he said. In fact, being there when his patients die offers him some comfort. He rarely misses a patient’s death because now Dr. Blanke’s patients can schedule their departure.

An oncologist at the Knight Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon, Dr. Blanke specializes in end-of-life care with an emphasis on death with dignity, also known as medical aid in dying. He admits it’s not a role every physician is comfortable with.

“If you’re paralyzed by grief, you can’t do this for a living,” he said. But he’s able to do the work because he genuinely feels he’s helping patients get “the relief they so strongly desire” in their last moments.

When cancer care can’t give them the life they wanted, he can give them control over when and how they die. And the ability to honor their last wishes offers him some closure as well.

“You know what kind of end they have. You know it was peaceful. You see them achieve the thing that was the most important to them,” he said.

Despite this process, he still encounters some circumstances utterly heart-wrenching — the very young patients who have advanced disease. Some of these patients choose to die because they can’t afford to continue treatment. Others don’t have a support system. In these instances, Dr. Blanke is often the only one in the room.

Believe it or not, he said, the paperwork — and there’s a lot of it in his line of work — helps remind Dr. Blanke that patients’ last wishes are being honored.
 

Making Changes

After Dr. Lewis was confronted by his partner, he began to face the shortcomings of his own coping strategies. His practice hired a social worker to help staff process difficult experiences. After the loss of every patient, the practice comes together to share and process the loss.

For him, funerals remain helpful, providing a sort of solace, so he continues to go when he can. But how to grieve is something each doctor has to figure out, he said.

Deaths still hit hard, especially the ones he doesn’t see coming. The patients who remind him of his dad can also be hard. They restart a cycle of grief from his teenage years.

The difference now is he has space to voice those concerns and someone objective to help his process.

“It’s a privilege to prepare [patients for death] and help them build their legacy,” he said. But it’s also an unrelenting challenge to navigate that grief, he said.

Still, the grief lets Dr. Lewis know he’s still engaged.

“The day I don’t feel something is probably the day I need to take a break or walk away.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In January 2023, Mark Lewis, MD, stood with the door slammed in his face. His partner in the practice had had enough. She accused him of sugarcoating prognoses and leaving her to tell patients the whole truth.

The reality was he just didn’t know how to grieve.

Dr. Lewis was well acquainted with cancer grief long before he became an oncologist. Dr. Lewis’ father died of a rare, hereditary cancer syndrome when he was only 14. The condition, which causes tumors to grow in the endocrine glands, can be hard to identify and, if found late, deadly.

In some ways, Dr. Lewis’ career caring for patients with advanced cancers was born out of that first loss. He centered his practice around helping patients diagnosed at late stages, like his father.

But that comes at a cost. Many patients will die.

Dr. Lewis’ encounter with his colleague led him to inventory his practice. He found that well over half of his patients died within 2 years following their advanced cancer diagnosis.

To stave off the grief of so many losses, Dr. Lewis became an eternal optimist in the clinic, in search of the Hail Mary chemotherapy, any way to eke out a few more months only to be ambushed by grief when a patient did finally pass.

At funerals — which he made every effort to attend — Dr. Lewis couldn’t help but think, “If I had done my job better, none of us with be here.” His grief started to mingle with this sense of guilt.

It became a cycle: Denial shrouded in optimism, grief, then a toxic guilt. The pattern became untenable for his colleagues. And his partner finally called him out.

Few medical specialties draw physicians as close to their patients as oncology. The long courses of treatment-spanning years can foster an intimacy that is comforting for patients and fulfilling for physicians. But that closeness can also set doctors up for an acute grief when the end of life comes.

Experts agree that no amount of training in medical school prepares an oncologist to navigate the grief that comes with losing patients. Five oncologists spoke with this news organization about the boundaries they rely on to sustain their careers.
 

Don’t Go to Funerals

Don Dizon, MD, who specializes in women’s cancers, established an essential boundary 20 years ago: Never go to funerals. In his early days at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the death of each patient dealt him a crushing blow. He’d go to the funerals in search of closure, but that only added to the weight of his grief.

“When I started in oncology, I just remember the most tragic cases were the ones I was taking care of,” recalled Dr. Dizon, now director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Lincoln, Rhode Island.

Dr. Dizon recalled one young mother who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She responded to treatment, but it was short-lived, and her cancer progressed, he said. Multiple treatments followed, but none were effective. Eventually, Dr. Dizon had to tell her that “there’s nothing left to try.”

At her funeral, watching her grieving husband with their daughter who had just started to walk, Dr. Dizon was overwhelmed with despair.

“When you have to do this multiple times a year,” the grief becomes untenable, he said. Sensing the difficulty I was having as a new attending, “my boss stopped sending me patients because he knew I was in trouble emotionally.”

That’s when Dr. Dizon started looking for other ways to get closure.

Today, he tries to say his goodbyes before a patient dies. After the final treatment or before hospice, Dr. Dizon has a parting conversation with his patients to express the privilege of caring for them and all he learned from them. These talks help him and his patient connect in their last moments together.
 

The Price of Wildly Happy Days

Molly Taylor, MD, MS, a pediatric oncologist in Seattle, sees the deeply sad days as the price an oncologist pays to be witness to the “wildly happy ones.”

Dr. Taylor has gone to patients’ funerals, has even been asked to speak at them, but she has also attended patients’ weddings.

To some degree, doctors get good at compartmentalizing, and they become accustomed to tragedy, she said. But there are some patients who stick with you, “and that is a whole other level of grief,” Dr. Taylor said.

Several years into her practice, one of Dr. Taylor’s patients, someone who reminded her of her own child, died. The death came as a surprise, and the finality of it took her breath away, she said. The sadness only deepened as days went by. “I felt that mother’s grief and still do,” she said.

The patient’s funeral was one of the most difficult moments in her career as an oncologist. Even weeks later, she caught herself picturing the family huddled together that day.

Taking long walks, commiserating with colleagues who get it, and watching the occasional cat video can help take the immediate sting away. But the pain of losing a patient can be long lasting and processing that grief can be a lonely endeavor.

“We need space to recognize grief for all providers, all the people that touch these patients’ lives — the nurses, the translators, the cleaning staff,” Dr. Taylor said. Otherwise, you start to believe you’re the only one feeling the weight of the loss.

While it doesn’t make the losses any less poignant, Dr. Taylor finds solace in the good moments: Patient graduations and weddings, survivors who now volunteer at the hospital, and a patient who had a baby of her own this past year. If facing grief daily has taught Dr. Taylor anything, it is to not let the good moments pass unnoticed.
 

Towing the Line

Ten years ago, Tina Rizack, MD, walked into the ICU to see a young mother holding her 6-year-old daughter. The mother had necrotizing fasciitis that had gone undiagnosed.

As Dr. Rizack stood in the doorway watching the embrace, she saw a grim future: A child without her mother. This realization hit too close to home, she said. “I still think about that case.”

In her training, Dr. Rizack, now medical director of hematology/oncology at St. Anne’s in Fall River, Massachusetts, worked with a social worker who taught her how to deal with these tough cases — most importantly, how to not take them home with her.

Over the years, Dr. Rizack learned how to build and sustain a firm barrier between work and outside work.

She doesn’t go to funerals or give out her cell phone number. If charts need to be done, she prefers to stay late at the clinic instead of bringing them home.

And she invests in the simple moments that help her detach from the day-to-day in the clinic — rooting for her kids at their games, carving out time for family meals most days, and having relaxed movie nights on the couch.

“It’s hard sometimes,” she said. But “I really do need the line.” Because without it, she can’t show up for her patients the way she wants and needs to.

Establishing the work-life boundary means that when at work, Dr. Rizack can be all in for her patients. Even after her patients’ treatment ends, she makes sure to check on them at home or in hospice. For her, sticking with patients over the long term offers some closure.

“I want to love work, and if I’m there all the time, I’m not going to love it,” she said.
 

Trading Funerals for the Bedside

Like many other oncologists, Charles Blanke, MD, finds that going to patients’ funerals makes the loss seem more profound. Being at the bedside when they die is not as painful, he said. In fact, being there when his patients die offers him some comfort. He rarely misses a patient’s death because now Dr. Blanke’s patients can schedule their departure.

An oncologist at the Knight Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon, Dr. Blanke specializes in end-of-life care with an emphasis on death with dignity, also known as medical aid in dying. He admits it’s not a role every physician is comfortable with.

“If you’re paralyzed by grief, you can’t do this for a living,” he said. But he’s able to do the work because he genuinely feels he’s helping patients get “the relief they so strongly desire” in their last moments.

When cancer care can’t give them the life they wanted, he can give them control over when and how they die. And the ability to honor their last wishes offers him some closure as well.

“You know what kind of end they have. You know it was peaceful. You see them achieve the thing that was the most important to them,” he said.

Despite this process, he still encounters some circumstances utterly heart-wrenching — the very young patients who have advanced disease. Some of these patients choose to die because they can’t afford to continue treatment. Others don’t have a support system. In these instances, Dr. Blanke is often the only one in the room.

Believe it or not, he said, the paperwork — and there’s a lot of it in his line of work — helps remind Dr. Blanke that patients’ last wishes are being honored.
 

Making Changes

After Dr. Lewis was confronted by his partner, he began to face the shortcomings of his own coping strategies. His practice hired a social worker to help staff process difficult experiences. After the loss of every patient, the practice comes together to share and process the loss.

For him, funerals remain helpful, providing a sort of solace, so he continues to go when he can. But how to grieve is something each doctor has to figure out, he said.

Deaths still hit hard, especially the ones he doesn’t see coming. The patients who remind him of his dad can also be hard. They restart a cycle of grief from his teenage years.

The difference now is he has space to voice those concerns and someone objective to help his process.

“It’s a privilege to prepare [patients for death] and help them build their legacy,” he said. But it’s also an unrelenting challenge to navigate that grief, he said.

Still, the grief lets Dr. Lewis know he’s still engaged.

“The day I don’t feel something is probably the day I need to take a break or walk away.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care visits for preventive services have nearly doubled since 2001, and new research suggests these visits give clinicians and patients more valuable time together.

The proportion of preventive services–focused visits to primary care increased from 12.8% in 2001 to 24.6% in 2019, according to findings from a cross-sectional study of adult primary care visits that was published in Health Affairs.

The increase over time persisted across all age groups and insurance types, including private insurance, Medicaid, self-pay, and workers’ compensation. Medicare beneficiaries exhibited the largest increases in preventive visits, up 10 percentage points over the two-decade span.

The uptick is likely associated with policies enacted under the Affordable Care Act, which made preventive exams a unique visit type with no copay for Medicare and most other insurance plans, according to the researchers. The data showed a spike in preventive visits for patients aged 18-44 years shortly after the law was passed.

But “other factors in our health care system could have reduced the impact of the policies,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, a primary care physician at the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who is the lead author of the study.

National trends show that fewer Americans have a primary care clinician, and those who do see these specialists less frequently than in previous decades. In addition, the primary care workforce is shrinking, even as more nurse practitioners and physician assistants join the specialty.

“I’m surprised and pleased,” said Ann Greiner, president of the Primary Care Coalition, an organization working to expand access to primary care.

Although the study in Health Affairs did not examine trends in primary care visits overall, the researchers highlighted several findings from previous research that found declines in these visits. That research also found that there were fewer adults who had a usual source of primary care.

“We know there’s a decline in primary care visits, which is where preventive care happens,” Ms. Greiner said.

The new study, which used data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, showed that physicians spent significantly more time with patients during preventive visits, compared with problem-based visits.

Physicians were also significantly more likely to counsel patients, order preventive labs, or order a preventive image or procedure during these exams. Nurse practitioner visits or physician assistant visits were not included in the study.

Christina Breit, MD, a primary care physician at Norton’s Medical Group, Louisville, Ky., said she usually spends 30-40 minutes conducting a physical exam, compared with only 10 or 15 minutes during an acute visit.

“When they come in for the preventive visit is when we really figure out the social determinants of health,” Dr. Breit said.

During this extended time discussing patient health risks, preferences, and daily routine, Dr. Breit starts to pick up on any red flags that she would have missed in a 10-minute acute care appointment, which helps guide care decisions.

On top of the well-established benefits of preventive care, the extended time fosters an improved physician-patient relationship, Dr. Rotenstein said. Longitudinal relationships between doctor and patient are linked to lower patient costs and hospitalizations.

“That’s supposed to be one of our primary goals, is to use preventive care as a stopgap for chronic illness,” said Diane Thierys, NP, a family nurse practitioner in Columbia, Ky.

Over the past 20 years of her 35-year-long career, she has been able to allot more time to these visits while being adequately reimbursed, she said. In spring 2023, she started providing home wellness visits for Medicare enrollees.

“There’s definitely been a long overdue increase” in preventive care visits in the past 20 years, Ms. Thierys told this news organization. “Before that, visits were focused on the chief complaint of the day.”

But an increase in preventive visits may also reflect the fact that patients are seeking out other specialists for various ailments.

“Some of the simple, problem-based visits have actually left primary care,” said Tim Anderson, MD, MAS, a primary care physician and health services researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “The results may be indicative of the migration of ear infections and sore throats to urgent care and pharmacy-based minute clinics, for instance.”

Although urgent care clinicians usually do not have medical records or patient histories, this setting can be more accessible and convenient, Ms. Greiner said.

One limitation of the study is that it only evaluated trends through 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic put intense stress on primary care clinicians and limited access to this care.

“Will we continue to see increases in preventive visits? We will have to track and see,” Ms. Greiner said.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Rotenstein reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care visits for preventive services have nearly doubled since 2001, and new research suggests these visits give clinicians and patients more valuable time together.

The proportion of preventive services–focused visits to primary care increased from 12.8% in 2001 to 24.6% in 2019, according to findings from a cross-sectional study of adult primary care visits that was published in Health Affairs.

The increase over time persisted across all age groups and insurance types, including private insurance, Medicaid, self-pay, and workers’ compensation. Medicare beneficiaries exhibited the largest increases in preventive visits, up 10 percentage points over the two-decade span.

The uptick is likely associated with policies enacted under the Affordable Care Act, which made preventive exams a unique visit type with no copay for Medicare and most other insurance plans, according to the researchers. The data showed a spike in preventive visits for patients aged 18-44 years shortly after the law was passed.

But “other factors in our health care system could have reduced the impact of the policies,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, a primary care physician at the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who is the lead author of the study.

National trends show that fewer Americans have a primary care clinician, and those who do see these specialists less frequently than in previous decades. In addition, the primary care workforce is shrinking, even as more nurse practitioners and physician assistants join the specialty.

“I’m surprised and pleased,” said Ann Greiner, president of the Primary Care Coalition, an organization working to expand access to primary care.

Although the study in Health Affairs did not examine trends in primary care visits overall, the researchers highlighted several findings from previous research that found declines in these visits. That research also found that there were fewer adults who had a usual source of primary care.

“We know there’s a decline in primary care visits, which is where preventive care happens,” Ms. Greiner said.

The new study, which used data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, showed that physicians spent significantly more time with patients during preventive visits, compared with problem-based visits.

Physicians were also significantly more likely to counsel patients, order preventive labs, or order a preventive image or procedure during these exams. Nurse practitioner visits or physician assistant visits were not included in the study.

Christina Breit, MD, a primary care physician at Norton’s Medical Group, Louisville, Ky., said she usually spends 30-40 minutes conducting a physical exam, compared with only 10 or 15 minutes during an acute visit.

“When they come in for the preventive visit is when we really figure out the social determinants of health,” Dr. Breit said.

During this extended time discussing patient health risks, preferences, and daily routine, Dr. Breit starts to pick up on any red flags that she would have missed in a 10-minute acute care appointment, which helps guide care decisions.

On top of the well-established benefits of preventive care, the extended time fosters an improved physician-patient relationship, Dr. Rotenstein said. Longitudinal relationships between doctor and patient are linked to lower patient costs and hospitalizations.

“That’s supposed to be one of our primary goals, is to use preventive care as a stopgap for chronic illness,” said Diane Thierys, NP, a family nurse practitioner in Columbia, Ky.

Over the past 20 years of her 35-year-long career, she has been able to allot more time to these visits while being adequately reimbursed, she said. In spring 2023, she started providing home wellness visits for Medicare enrollees.

“There’s definitely been a long overdue increase” in preventive care visits in the past 20 years, Ms. Thierys told this news organization. “Before that, visits were focused on the chief complaint of the day.”

But an increase in preventive visits may also reflect the fact that patients are seeking out other specialists for various ailments.

“Some of the simple, problem-based visits have actually left primary care,” said Tim Anderson, MD, MAS, a primary care physician and health services researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “The results may be indicative of the migration of ear infections and sore throats to urgent care and pharmacy-based minute clinics, for instance.”

Although urgent care clinicians usually do not have medical records or patient histories, this setting can be more accessible and convenient, Ms. Greiner said.

One limitation of the study is that it only evaluated trends through 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic put intense stress on primary care clinicians and limited access to this care.

“Will we continue to see increases in preventive visits? We will have to track and see,” Ms. Greiner said.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Rotenstein reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care visits for preventive services have nearly doubled since 2001, and new research suggests these visits give clinicians and patients more valuable time together.

The proportion of preventive services–focused visits to primary care increased from 12.8% in 2001 to 24.6% in 2019, according to findings from a cross-sectional study of adult primary care visits that was published in Health Affairs.

The increase over time persisted across all age groups and insurance types, including private insurance, Medicaid, self-pay, and workers’ compensation. Medicare beneficiaries exhibited the largest increases in preventive visits, up 10 percentage points over the two-decade span.

The uptick is likely associated with policies enacted under the Affordable Care Act, which made preventive exams a unique visit type with no copay for Medicare and most other insurance plans, according to the researchers. The data showed a spike in preventive visits for patients aged 18-44 years shortly after the law was passed.

But “other factors in our health care system could have reduced the impact of the policies,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, a primary care physician at the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who is the lead author of the study.

National trends show that fewer Americans have a primary care clinician, and those who do see these specialists less frequently than in previous decades. In addition, the primary care workforce is shrinking, even as more nurse practitioners and physician assistants join the specialty.

“I’m surprised and pleased,” said Ann Greiner, president of the Primary Care Coalition, an organization working to expand access to primary care.

Although the study in Health Affairs did not examine trends in primary care visits overall, the researchers highlighted several findings from previous research that found declines in these visits. That research also found that there were fewer adults who had a usual source of primary care.

“We know there’s a decline in primary care visits, which is where preventive care happens,” Ms. Greiner said.

The new study, which used data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, showed that physicians spent significantly more time with patients during preventive visits, compared with problem-based visits.

Physicians were also significantly more likely to counsel patients, order preventive labs, or order a preventive image or procedure during these exams. Nurse practitioner visits or physician assistant visits were not included in the study.

Christina Breit, MD, a primary care physician at Norton’s Medical Group, Louisville, Ky., said she usually spends 30-40 minutes conducting a physical exam, compared with only 10 or 15 minutes during an acute visit.

“When they come in for the preventive visit is when we really figure out the social determinants of health,” Dr. Breit said.

During this extended time discussing patient health risks, preferences, and daily routine, Dr. Breit starts to pick up on any red flags that she would have missed in a 10-minute acute care appointment, which helps guide care decisions.

On top of the well-established benefits of preventive care, the extended time fosters an improved physician-patient relationship, Dr. Rotenstein said. Longitudinal relationships between doctor and patient are linked to lower patient costs and hospitalizations.

“That’s supposed to be one of our primary goals, is to use preventive care as a stopgap for chronic illness,” said Diane Thierys, NP, a family nurse practitioner in Columbia, Ky.

Over the past 20 years of her 35-year-long career, she has been able to allot more time to these visits while being adequately reimbursed, she said. In spring 2023, she started providing home wellness visits for Medicare enrollees.

“There’s definitely been a long overdue increase” in preventive care visits in the past 20 years, Ms. Thierys told this news organization. “Before that, visits were focused on the chief complaint of the day.”

But an increase in preventive visits may also reflect the fact that patients are seeking out other specialists for various ailments.

“Some of the simple, problem-based visits have actually left primary care,” said Tim Anderson, MD, MAS, a primary care physician and health services researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “The results may be indicative of the migration of ear infections and sore throats to urgent care and pharmacy-based minute clinics, for instance.”

Although urgent care clinicians usually do not have medical records or patient histories, this setting can be more accessible and convenient, Ms. Greiner said.

One limitation of the study is that it only evaluated trends through 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic put intense stress on primary care clinicians and limited access to this care.

“Will we continue to see increases in preventive visits? We will have to track and see,” Ms. Greiner said.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Rotenstein reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Artificial intelligence can distinguish overlapping inflammatory conditions with total accuracy, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Texas pediatricians faced a conundrum during the pandemic. Endemic typhus, a flea-borne tropical infection common to the region, is nearly indistinguishable from multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a rare condition set in motion by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Children with either ailment had seemingly identical symptoms: fever, rash, gastrointestinal issues, and in need of swift treatment. A diagnosis of endemic typhus can take 4-6 days to confirm.

Tiphanie Vogel, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, and colleagues sought to create a tool to hasten diagnosis and, ideally, treatment. To do so, they incorporated machine learning and clinical factors available within the first 6 hours of the onset of symptoms.

The team analyzed 49 demographic, clinical, and laboratory measures from the medical records of 133 children with MIS-C and 87 with endemic typhus. Using deep learning, they narrowed the model to 30 essential features that became the backbone of AI-MET, a two-phase clinical-decision support system.

Phase 1 uses 17 clinical factors and can be performed on paper. If a patient’s score in phase 1 is not determinative, clinicians proceed to phase 2, which uses an additional 13 weighted factors and machine learning.

In testing, the two-part tool classified each of the 220 test patients perfectly. And it diagnosed a second group of 111 patients with MIS-C with 99% (110/111) accuracy.

Of note, “that first step classifies [a patient] correctly half of the time,” Dr. Vogel said, so the second, AI phase of the tool was necessary for only half of cases. Dr. Vogel said that’s a good sign; it means that the tool is useful in settings where AI may not always be feasible, like in a busy ED.

Melissa Mizesko, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Driscoll Children’s Hospital in Corpus Christi, Tex., said that the new tool could help clinicians streamline care. When cases of MIS-C peaked in Texas, clinicians often would start sick children on doxycycline and treat for MIS-C at the same time, then wait to see whether the antibiotic brought the fever down.

“This [new tool] is helpful if you live in a part of the country that has typhus,” said Jane Burns, MD, director of the Kawasaki Disease Research Center at the University of California, San Diego, who helped develop a similar AI-based tool to distinguish MIS-C from Kawasaki disease. But she encouraged the researchers to expand their testing to include other conditions. Although the AI model Dr. Vogel’s group developed can pinpoint MIS-C or endemic typhus, what if a child has neither condition? “It’s not often you’re dealing with a diagnosis between just two specific diseases,” Dr. Burns said.

Dr. Vogel is also interested in making AI-MET more efficient. “This go-round we prioritized perfect accuracy,” she said. But 30 clinical factors, with 17 of them recorded and calculated by hand, is a lot. “Could we still get this to be very accurate, maybe not perfect, with less inputs?”

In addition to refining AI-MET, which Texas Children’s eventually hopes to make available to other institutions, Dr. Vogel and associates are also considering other use cases for AI. Lupus is one option. “Maybe with machine learning we could identify clues at diagnosis that would help recommend targeted treatment,” she said

Dr. Vogel disclosed potential conflicts of interest with Moderna, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI. Dr. Burns and Dr. Mizesko disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can distinguish overlapping inflammatory conditions with total accuracy, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Texas pediatricians faced a conundrum during the pandemic. Endemic typhus, a flea-borne tropical infection common to the region, is nearly indistinguishable from multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a rare condition set in motion by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Children with either ailment had seemingly identical symptoms: fever, rash, gastrointestinal issues, and in need of swift treatment. A diagnosis of endemic typhus can take 4-6 days to confirm.

Tiphanie Vogel, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, and colleagues sought to create a tool to hasten diagnosis and, ideally, treatment. To do so, they incorporated machine learning and clinical factors available within the first 6 hours of the onset of symptoms.

The team analyzed 49 demographic, clinical, and laboratory measures from the medical records of 133 children with MIS-C and 87 with endemic typhus. Using deep learning, they narrowed the model to 30 essential features that became the backbone of AI-MET, a two-phase clinical-decision support system.

Phase 1 uses 17 clinical factors and can be performed on paper. If a patient’s score in phase 1 is not determinative, clinicians proceed to phase 2, which uses an additional 13 weighted factors and machine learning.

In testing, the two-part tool classified each of the 220 test patients perfectly. And it diagnosed a second group of 111 patients with MIS-C with 99% (110/111) accuracy.

Of note, “that first step classifies [a patient] correctly half of the time,” Dr. Vogel said, so the second, AI phase of the tool was necessary for only half of cases. Dr. Vogel said that’s a good sign; it means that the tool is useful in settings where AI may not always be feasible, like in a busy ED.

Melissa Mizesko, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Driscoll Children’s Hospital in Corpus Christi, Tex., said that the new tool could help clinicians streamline care. When cases of MIS-C peaked in Texas, clinicians often would start sick children on doxycycline and treat for MIS-C at the same time, then wait to see whether the antibiotic brought the fever down.

“This [new tool] is helpful if you live in a part of the country that has typhus,” said Jane Burns, MD, director of the Kawasaki Disease Research Center at the University of California, San Diego, who helped develop a similar AI-based tool to distinguish MIS-C from Kawasaki disease. But she encouraged the researchers to expand their testing to include other conditions. Although the AI model Dr. Vogel’s group developed can pinpoint MIS-C or endemic typhus, what if a child has neither condition? “It’s not often you’re dealing with a diagnosis between just two specific diseases,” Dr. Burns said.

Dr. Vogel is also interested in making AI-MET more efficient. “This go-round we prioritized perfect accuracy,” she said. But 30 clinical factors, with 17 of them recorded and calculated by hand, is a lot. “Could we still get this to be very accurate, maybe not perfect, with less inputs?”

In addition to refining AI-MET, which Texas Children’s eventually hopes to make available to other institutions, Dr. Vogel and associates are also considering other use cases for AI. Lupus is one option. “Maybe with machine learning we could identify clues at diagnosis that would help recommend targeted treatment,” she said

Dr. Vogel disclosed potential conflicts of interest with Moderna, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI. Dr. Burns and Dr. Mizesko disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can distinguish overlapping inflammatory conditions with total accuracy, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Texas pediatricians faced a conundrum during the pandemic. Endemic typhus, a flea-borne tropical infection common to the region, is nearly indistinguishable from multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a rare condition set in motion by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Children with either ailment had seemingly identical symptoms: fever, rash, gastrointestinal issues, and in need of swift treatment. A diagnosis of endemic typhus can take 4-6 days to confirm.

Tiphanie Vogel, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, and colleagues sought to create a tool to hasten diagnosis and, ideally, treatment. To do so, they incorporated machine learning and clinical factors available within the first 6 hours of the onset of symptoms.

The team analyzed 49 demographic, clinical, and laboratory measures from the medical records of 133 children with MIS-C and 87 with endemic typhus. Using deep learning, they narrowed the model to 30 essential features that became the backbone of AI-MET, a two-phase clinical-decision support system.

Phase 1 uses 17 clinical factors and can be performed on paper. If a patient’s score in phase 1 is not determinative, clinicians proceed to phase 2, which uses an additional 13 weighted factors and machine learning.

In testing, the two-part tool classified each of the 220 test patients perfectly. And it diagnosed a second group of 111 patients with MIS-C with 99% (110/111) accuracy.

Of note, “that first step classifies [a patient] correctly half of the time,” Dr. Vogel said, so the second, AI phase of the tool was necessary for only half of cases. Dr. Vogel said that’s a good sign; it means that the tool is useful in settings where AI may not always be feasible, like in a busy ED.

Melissa Mizesko, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Driscoll Children’s Hospital in Corpus Christi, Tex., said that the new tool could help clinicians streamline care. When cases of MIS-C peaked in Texas, clinicians often would start sick children on doxycycline and treat for MIS-C at the same time, then wait to see whether the antibiotic brought the fever down.

“This [new tool] is helpful if you live in a part of the country that has typhus,” said Jane Burns, MD, director of the Kawasaki Disease Research Center at the University of California, San Diego, who helped develop a similar AI-based tool to distinguish MIS-C from Kawasaki disease. But she encouraged the researchers to expand their testing to include other conditions. Although the AI model Dr. Vogel’s group developed can pinpoint MIS-C or endemic typhus, what if a child has neither condition? “It’s not often you’re dealing with a diagnosis between just two specific diseases,” Dr. Burns said.

Dr. Vogel is also interested in making AI-MET more efficient. “This go-round we prioritized perfect accuracy,” she said. But 30 clinical factors, with 17 of them recorded and calculated by hand, is a lot. “Could we still get this to be very accurate, maybe not perfect, with less inputs?”

In addition to refining AI-MET, which Texas Children’s eventually hopes to make available to other institutions, Dr. Vogel and associates are also considering other use cases for AI. Lupus is one option. “Maybe with machine learning we could identify clues at diagnosis that would help recommend targeted treatment,” she said

Dr. Vogel disclosed potential conflicts of interest with Moderna, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI. Dr. Burns and Dr. Mizesko disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adolescents and young adults who smoked and vaped were more likely to report ocular problems including dryness, redness, pain, blurry vision, light sensitivity, and headaches, according to an observational study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Eye symptoms were significantly worse among young people who reported using both cigarettes and e-cigarettes than for those who said they used only one of the products, according to researchers. Symptoms were particularly frequent and severe among those who had used both products in the prior week. 

“In ophthalmology clinics, I’ve increasingly noticed patients, particularly adolescents and young adults, presenting with eye-related symptoms such as dryness, irritation, and even vision disturbances,” said Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, MDCM, an ophthalmology resident at the University of Toronto, who led the study. 

Many of these patients said they did not use contact lenses or take medications associated with eye problems, but they did report a history of using e-cigarettes and cigarettes. 

This “sparked my curiosity about the possible link between smoking or vaping and ocular symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen, who conducted the research as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization. 

E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among young people. Public health data show an increasing trend toward both vaping and smoking cigarettes, known as dual use. An estimated 40% of middle- and high school–aged tobacco users report using two or more tobacco products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use has been linked to ocular damage, but the effects of e-cigarettes on eyesight and the combined effect with cigarettes are not as well known. 

Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues surveyed more than 4,000 people aged 13-24 about their use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes in the last 30 days, the last 7 days, or ever. Half said they had never used any tobacco product and one quarter reported having used cigarettes, vapes, or both in the last month. More than 900 respondents said they had used one or both tobacco products in the last week. 

Of the respondents who had ever vaped, 55.9% said they also used cigarettes. These dual users reported more severe and frequent eye symptoms compared with users of either product alone. Up to 4% of respondents who had ever been a dual user reported daily, severe, or very severe ocular symptoms – more than in the cigarette-only or e-cigarette-only groups. 

More frequent tobacco use also was associated with more ocular symptoms. Young people who smoked or vaped in the previous week reported more symptoms than did the 30-day group, who reported more symptoms than the ever-user group (those who had taken at least a puff but not in the last month).

“All these conditions we know are worse as you get older,” said Laura B. Enyedi, MD, pediatric ophthalmologist at the Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., who was not associated with the study. “So if young people are having symptoms, it doesn’t bode well for them as they age.”

E-cigarette use alone did not appear to be linked to eye ailments, according to the findings. But to Dr. Nguyen’s surprise the survey results showed users of vaping products spent the most time worried about their eye health compared with all other participants. Users who smoked only cigarettes reported ocular symptoms, but not as severe or frequent as those of dual users. 

The researchers hypothesized that ocular problems caused by vapes and cigarettes could be classified as oxidative damage. The combustion of the cigarette and the e-cigarette solvent (propylene glycol) potentially generates free radicals that can cause oxidative stress, damaging the ocular surface and film, Dr. Nguyen said. 

Ophthalmologists are “always asking about contact lens use, lid hygiene, and screen time. Here’s another thing to consider when we get those common, nonspecific complaints of symptoms like dryness, redness, and burning,” Dr. Enyedi said.

Given the observational nature of the study, the researchers cannot confirm that dual use causes ocular symptoms. But given the public health challenge that tobacco use already presents for young people, the findings provide yet another reason to counsel against tobacco use and provide cessation options, Dr. Nguyen said. 

“This study is just one of many, many studies showing a significant relationship among smoking, e-cigarette use, and health outcomes,” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study. “We clearly need to help young people not use at all, or quit or cut back if using.” 

This study was supported by the Taube Research Faculty Scholar Endowment; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Cancer Institute; the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; and the Research to Prevent Blindness and National Eye Institute. Dr. Halpern-Felsher reported receiving personal fees as an expert scientist in litigation against some e-cigarette companies. The other study authors and Dr. Enyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adolescents and young adults who smoked and vaped were more likely to report ocular problems including dryness, redness, pain, blurry vision, light sensitivity, and headaches, according to an observational study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Eye symptoms were significantly worse among young people who reported using both cigarettes and e-cigarettes than for those who said they used only one of the products, according to researchers. Symptoms were particularly frequent and severe among those who had used both products in the prior week. 

“In ophthalmology clinics, I’ve increasingly noticed patients, particularly adolescents and young adults, presenting with eye-related symptoms such as dryness, irritation, and even vision disturbances,” said Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, MDCM, an ophthalmology resident at the University of Toronto, who led the study. 

Many of these patients said they did not use contact lenses or take medications associated with eye problems, but they did report a history of using e-cigarettes and cigarettes. 

This “sparked my curiosity about the possible link between smoking or vaping and ocular symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen, who conducted the research as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization. 

E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among young people. Public health data show an increasing trend toward both vaping and smoking cigarettes, known as dual use. An estimated 40% of middle- and high school–aged tobacco users report using two or more tobacco products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use has been linked to ocular damage, but the effects of e-cigarettes on eyesight and the combined effect with cigarettes are not as well known. 

Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues surveyed more than 4,000 people aged 13-24 about their use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes in the last 30 days, the last 7 days, or ever. Half said they had never used any tobacco product and one quarter reported having used cigarettes, vapes, or both in the last month. More than 900 respondents said they had used one or both tobacco products in the last week. 

Of the respondents who had ever vaped, 55.9% said they also used cigarettes. These dual users reported more severe and frequent eye symptoms compared with users of either product alone. Up to 4% of respondents who had ever been a dual user reported daily, severe, or very severe ocular symptoms – more than in the cigarette-only or e-cigarette-only groups. 

More frequent tobacco use also was associated with more ocular symptoms. Young people who smoked or vaped in the previous week reported more symptoms than did the 30-day group, who reported more symptoms than the ever-user group (those who had taken at least a puff but not in the last month).

“All these conditions we know are worse as you get older,” said Laura B. Enyedi, MD, pediatric ophthalmologist at the Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., who was not associated with the study. “So if young people are having symptoms, it doesn’t bode well for them as they age.”

E-cigarette use alone did not appear to be linked to eye ailments, according to the findings. But to Dr. Nguyen’s surprise the survey results showed users of vaping products spent the most time worried about their eye health compared with all other participants. Users who smoked only cigarettes reported ocular symptoms, but not as severe or frequent as those of dual users. 

The researchers hypothesized that ocular problems caused by vapes and cigarettes could be classified as oxidative damage. The combustion of the cigarette and the e-cigarette solvent (propylene glycol) potentially generates free radicals that can cause oxidative stress, damaging the ocular surface and film, Dr. Nguyen said. 

Ophthalmologists are “always asking about contact lens use, lid hygiene, and screen time. Here’s another thing to consider when we get those common, nonspecific complaints of symptoms like dryness, redness, and burning,” Dr. Enyedi said.

Given the observational nature of the study, the researchers cannot confirm that dual use causes ocular symptoms. But given the public health challenge that tobacco use already presents for young people, the findings provide yet another reason to counsel against tobacco use and provide cessation options, Dr. Nguyen said. 

“This study is just one of many, many studies showing a significant relationship among smoking, e-cigarette use, and health outcomes,” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study. “We clearly need to help young people not use at all, or quit or cut back if using.” 

This study was supported by the Taube Research Faculty Scholar Endowment; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Cancer Institute; the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; and the Research to Prevent Blindness and National Eye Institute. Dr. Halpern-Felsher reported receiving personal fees as an expert scientist in litigation against some e-cigarette companies. The other study authors and Dr. Enyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adolescents and young adults who smoked and vaped were more likely to report ocular problems including dryness, redness, pain, blurry vision, light sensitivity, and headaches, according to an observational study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Eye symptoms were significantly worse among young people who reported using both cigarettes and e-cigarettes than for those who said they used only one of the products, according to researchers. Symptoms were particularly frequent and severe among those who had used both products in the prior week. 

“In ophthalmology clinics, I’ve increasingly noticed patients, particularly adolescents and young adults, presenting with eye-related symptoms such as dryness, irritation, and even vision disturbances,” said Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, MDCM, an ophthalmology resident at the University of Toronto, who led the study. 

Many of these patients said they did not use contact lenses or take medications associated with eye problems, but they did report a history of using e-cigarettes and cigarettes. 

This “sparked my curiosity about the possible link between smoking or vaping and ocular symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen, who conducted the research as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization. 

E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among young people. Public health data show an increasing trend toward both vaping and smoking cigarettes, known as dual use. An estimated 40% of middle- and high school–aged tobacco users report using two or more tobacco products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use has been linked to ocular damage, but the effects of e-cigarettes on eyesight and the combined effect with cigarettes are not as well known. 

Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues surveyed more than 4,000 people aged 13-24 about their use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes in the last 30 days, the last 7 days, or ever. Half said they had never used any tobacco product and one quarter reported having used cigarettes, vapes, or both in the last month. More than 900 respondents said they had used one or both tobacco products in the last week. 

Of the respondents who had ever vaped, 55.9% said they also used cigarettes. These dual users reported more severe and frequent eye symptoms compared with users of either product alone. Up to 4% of respondents who had ever been a dual user reported daily, severe, or very severe ocular symptoms – more than in the cigarette-only or e-cigarette-only groups. 

More frequent tobacco use also was associated with more ocular symptoms. Young people who smoked or vaped in the previous week reported more symptoms than did the 30-day group, who reported more symptoms than the ever-user group (those who had taken at least a puff but not in the last month).

“All these conditions we know are worse as you get older,” said Laura B. Enyedi, MD, pediatric ophthalmologist at the Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., who was not associated with the study. “So if young people are having symptoms, it doesn’t bode well for them as they age.”

E-cigarette use alone did not appear to be linked to eye ailments, according to the findings. But to Dr. Nguyen’s surprise the survey results showed users of vaping products spent the most time worried about their eye health compared with all other participants. Users who smoked only cigarettes reported ocular symptoms, but not as severe or frequent as those of dual users. 

The researchers hypothesized that ocular problems caused by vapes and cigarettes could be classified as oxidative damage. The combustion of the cigarette and the e-cigarette solvent (propylene glycol) potentially generates free radicals that can cause oxidative stress, damaging the ocular surface and film, Dr. Nguyen said. 

Ophthalmologists are “always asking about contact lens use, lid hygiene, and screen time. Here’s another thing to consider when we get those common, nonspecific complaints of symptoms like dryness, redness, and burning,” Dr. Enyedi said.

Given the observational nature of the study, the researchers cannot confirm that dual use causes ocular symptoms. But given the public health challenge that tobacco use already presents for young people, the findings provide yet another reason to counsel against tobacco use and provide cessation options, Dr. Nguyen said. 

“This study is just one of many, many studies showing a significant relationship among smoking, e-cigarette use, and health outcomes,” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study. “We clearly need to help young people not use at all, or quit or cut back if using.” 

This study was supported by the Taube Research Faculty Scholar Endowment; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Cancer Institute; the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; and the Research to Prevent Blindness and National Eye Institute. Dr. Halpern-Felsher reported receiving personal fees as an expert scientist in litigation against some e-cigarette companies. The other study authors and Dr. Enyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In Colorado and Wyoming, nearly every baby born since 2020 is tested for signs of a mutation in the SMN1 gene, an indicator of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). And in 4 years, genetic counselor Melissa Gibbons has seen 24 positive results. She has prepped 24 different pediatricians and family doctors to deliver the news: A seemingly perfect newborn likely has a lethal genetic disease.

Most of these clinicians had never cared for a child with SMA before, nor did they know that lifesaving gene therapy for the condition now exists. Still, the physicians were foundational to getting babies emergency treatment and monitoring the child’s safety after the fact.

“They are boots on the ground for this kind of [work],” Ms. Gibbons, who is the newborn screen coordinator for SMA in both states, told this news organization. “I’m not even sure they realize it.” As of today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved 16 gene therapies for the treatment of rare and debilitating diseases once considered lethal, such as SMA and cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy.

The newest addition to the list of approvals is Elevidys, Sarepta’s gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). These conditions can now be mitigated, abated for years at a time, and even cured using treatments that tweak a patient’s DNA or RNA.

Hundreds of treatments are under development using the same mechanism. Viruses, liposomes, and other vectors of all kinds are being used to usher new genes into cells, correcting faulty copies or equipping a cell to fight disease. Cells gain the ability to make lifesaving proteins – proteins that heal wounds, restore muscle function, and fight cancer.

Within the decade, a significant fraction of the pediatric population will have gone through gene therapy, experts told this news organization. And primary care stands to be a linchpin in the scale-up of this kind of precision genetic medicine. Pediatricians and general practitioners will be central to finding and monitoring the patients that need these treatments. But the time and support doctors will need to fill that role remain scarce.

“This is a world we are creating right now, quite literally,” said Stanley Nelson, MD, director of the center for Duchenne muscular dystrophy at the University of California, Los Angeles. These cases – some before gene therapy and some after – will show up in primary care offices before the textbook is written.
 

Unknown side effects, new diseases

Even now, gene therapy is sequestered away in large academic medical research centers. The diagnosis, decision-making, and aftercare are handled by subspecialists working on clinical trials. While the research is ongoing, trial sponsors are keeping a close eye on enrolled patients. But that’s only until these drugs get market approval, Phil Beales, MD, chief medical officer at Congenica, a digital health company specializing in genome analysis support, said. Afterward, “the trialists will no longer have a role in looking after those patients.”

At that point, the role of primary care clinicians will be critically important. Although they probably will not manage gene-therapy patients on their own – comanaging them instead with subspecialists – they will be involved in the ordering and monitoring of safety labs and other tests.

General practitioners “need to know side effects because they are going to deal with side effects when someone calls them in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Beales, who also is chief executive officer of Axovia Therapeutics, a biotech company developing gene therapies.

Some of the side effects that come with gene therapy are established. Adeno-associated virus (AAV) or AAV-mediated gene therapies carry an increased risk for damage to the heart and liver, Dr. Nelson said. Other side effects are less well known and could be specific to the treatment and the tissue it targets. Primary care will be critical in detecting these unexpected side effects and expediting visits with subspecialists, he said.

In rural Wyoming, pediatricians and family doctors are especially important, Ms. Gibbons said. In the 30-90 days after gene therapy, patients need a lot of follow-up for safety reasons.

But aftercare for gene therapy will be more than just monitoring and managing side effects. The diseases themselves will change. Patients will be living with conditions that once were lethal.

In some cases, gene therapy may largely eliminate the disease. The data suggest that thalassemia, for example, can be largely cured for decades with one infusion of a patient’s genetically modified hematopoietic stem cells made using bluebird bio’s Zynteglo, according to Christy Duncan, MD, medical director of clinical research at the gene therapy program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

But other gene therapies, like the one for DMD, will offer a “spectrum of benefits,” Dr. Nelson said. They will be lifesaving, but the signs of the disease will linger. Clinicians will be learning alongside specialists what the new disease state for DMD and other rare diseases looks like after gene therapy.

“As we get hundreds of such therapies, [post–gene therapy] will amount to a substantial part of the pediatric population,” Dr. Nelson said.
 

Finding patients

Many of these rare diseases that plague young patients are unmistakable. Children with moderate or severe dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, for instance, carry a mutation that prevents them from making type VII collagen. The babies suffer wounds and excessive bleeding and tend to receive a quick diagnosis within the first 6 months of life, according to Andy Orth, chief commercial officer at Krystal Bio, manufacturer of a new wound-healing gene therapy, Vyjuvek, for the disorder.

Other rare neurologic or muscular diseases can go undiagnosed for years. Until recently, drug companies and researchers have had little motivation to speed up the timeline because early diagnosis of a disease like DMD would not change the outcome, Dr. Nelson said.

But with gene therapy, prognoses are changing. And finding diseases early could soon mean preserving muscular function or preventing neurologic damage, Dr. Duncan said.

Newborn sequencing “is not standard of care yet, but it’s certainly coming,” Josh Peterson, MD, MPH, director of the center for precision medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

A recent survey of 238 specialists in rare diseases found that roughly 90% believe whole-genome sequencing should be available to all newborns. And 80% of those experts endorse 42 genes as disease predictors. Screening for rare diseases at birth could reveal a host of conditions in the first week of life and expedite treatment. But this strategy will often rely on primary care and pediatricians interpreting the results.

Most pediatricians think sequencing is a great idea, but they do not feel comfortable doing it themselves, Dr. Peterson said. The good news, he said, is that manufacturers have made screening tests straightforward. Some drug companies even offer free screenings for gene therapy candidates.

Dr. Peterson predicts pediatricians will need to be equipped to deliver negative results on their own, which will be the case for around 97%-99% of patients. They also will need to be clear on whether a negative result is definitive or if more testing is warranted.

Positive results are more nuanced. Genetic counseling is the ideal resource when delivering this kind of news to patients, but counselors are a scarce resource nationally – and particularly in rural areas, Dr. Nelson said. Physicians likely will have to rely on their own counseling training to some degree.

“I feel very strongly that genetic counselors are in short supply,” Ms. Gibbons in Colorado said. Patients need a friendly resource who can talk them through the disease and how it works. And that discussion is not a one-off, she said.

The number of board-certified genetic counselors in the United States has doubled to more than 6,000 in the past 10 years – a pace that is expected to continue, according to the National Society of Genetic Counselors. “However, the geographical distribution of genetic counselors is most concentrated in urban centers.”

Equally important to the counseling experience, according to Dr. Duncan at Boston Children’s, is a primary care physician’s network of connections. The best newborn screening rollouts across the country have succeeded because clinicians knew where to send people next and how to get families the help they needed, she said.

But she also cautioned that this learning curve will soon be overwhelming. As gene therapy expands, it may be difficult for primary care doctors to keep up with the science, treatment studies, and commercially available therapies. “It’s asking too much,” Dr. Duncan said.

The structure of primary care already stretches practitioners thin and will “affect how well precision medicine can be adopted and disseminated,” Dr. Peterson said. “I think that is a key issue.”

Artificial intelligence may offer a partial solution. Some genetic counseling models already exist, but their utility for clinicians so far is limited, Dr. Beales said. But he said he expects these tools to improve rapidly to help clinicians and patients. On the patient’s end, they may be able to answer questions and supplement basic genetic counseling. On the physician’s end, algorithms could help triage patients and help move them along to the next steps in the care pathway for these rare diseases.
 

The whole patient

Primary care physicians will not be expected to be experts in gene therapy or solely in charge of patient safety. They will have support from industry and subspecialists leading the development of these treatments, experts agreed.

But generalists should expect to be drawn into multidisciplinary care teams, be the sounding boards for patients making decisions about gene therapy, help arrange insurance coverage, and be the recipients of late-night phone calls about side effects.

All that, while never losing sight of the child’s holistic health. In children so sick, specialists, subspecialists, and even parents tend to focus only on the rare disease. The team can “get distracted from good normal routine care,” Dr. Nelson said. But these children aren’t exempt from check-ups, vaccine regimens, or the other diseases of childhood.

“In a world where we mitigate that core disease,” he said, “we need a partner in the general pediatrics community” investing in their long-term health.

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

In Colorado and Wyoming, nearly every baby born since 2020 is tested for signs of a mutation in the SMN1 gene, an indicator of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). And in 4 years, genetic counselor Melissa Gibbons has seen 24 positive results. She has prepped 24 different pediatricians and family doctors to deliver the news: A seemingly perfect newborn likely has a lethal genetic disease.

Most of these clinicians had never cared for a child with SMA before, nor did they know that lifesaving gene therapy for the condition now exists. Still, the physicians were foundational to getting babies emergency treatment and monitoring the child’s safety after the fact.

“They are boots on the ground for this kind of [work],” Ms. Gibbons, who is the newborn screen coordinator for SMA in both states, told this news organization. “I’m not even sure they realize it.” As of today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved 16 gene therapies for the treatment of rare and debilitating diseases once considered lethal, such as SMA and cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy.

The newest addition to the list of approvals is Elevidys, Sarepta’s gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). These conditions can now be mitigated, abated for years at a time, and even cured using treatments that tweak a patient’s DNA or RNA.

Hundreds of treatments are under development using the same mechanism. Viruses, liposomes, and other vectors of all kinds are being used to usher new genes into cells, correcting faulty copies or equipping a cell to fight disease. Cells gain the ability to make lifesaving proteins – proteins that heal wounds, restore muscle function, and fight cancer.

Within the decade, a significant fraction of the pediatric population will have gone through gene therapy, experts told this news organization. And primary care stands to be a linchpin in the scale-up of this kind of precision genetic medicine. Pediatricians and general practitioners will be central to finding and monitoring the patients that need these treatments. But the time and support doctors will need to fill that role remain scarce.

“This is a world we are creating right now, quite literally,” said Stanley Nelson, MD, director of the center for Duchenne muscular dystrophy at the University of California, Los Angeles. These cases – some before gene therapy and some after – will show up in primary care offices before the textbook is written.
 

Unknown side effects, new diseases

Even now, gene therapy is sequestered away in large academic medical research centers. The diagnosis, decision-making, and aftercare are handled by subspecialists working on clinical trials. While the research is ongoing, trial sponsors are keeping a close eye on enrolled patients. But that’s only until these drugs get market approval, Phil Beales, MD, chief medical officer at Congenica, a digital health company specializing in genome analysis support, said. Afterward, “the trialists will no longer have a role in looking after those patients.”

At that point, the role of primary care clinicians will be critically important. Although they probably will not manage gene-therapy patients on their own – comanaging them instead with subspecialists – they will be involved in the ordering and monitoring of safety labs and other tests.

General practitioners “need to know side effects because they are going to deal with side effects when someone calls them in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Beales, who also is chief executive officer of Axovia Therapeutics, a biotech company developing gene therapies.

Some of the side effects that come with gene therapy are established. Adeno-associated virus (AAV) or AAV-mediated gene therapies carry an increased risk for damage to the heart and liver, Dr. Nelson said. Other side effects are less well known and could be specific to the treatment and the tissue it targets. Primary care will be critical in detecting these unexpected side effects and expediting visits with subspecialists, he said.

In rural Wyoming, pediatricians and family doctors are especially important, Ms. Gibbons said. In the 30-90 days after gene therapy, patients need a lot of follow-up for safety reasons.

But aftercare for gene therapy will be more than just monitoring and managing side effects. The diseases themselves will change. Patients will be living with conditions that once were lethal.

In some cases, gene therapy may largely eliminate the disease. The data suggest that thalassemia, for example, can be largely cured for decades with one infusion of a patient’s genetically modified hematopoietic stem cells made using bluebird bio’s Zynteglo, according to Christy Duncan, MD, medical director of clinical research at the gene therapy program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

But other gene therapies, like the one for DMD, will offer a “spectrum of benefits,” Dr. Nelson said. They will be lifesaving, but the signs of the disease will linger. Clinicians will be learning alongside specialists what the new disease state for DMD and other rare diseases looks like after gene therapy.

“As we get hundreds of such therapies, [post–gene therapy] will amount to a substantial part of the pediatric population,” Dr. Nelson said.
 

Finding patients

Many of these rare diseases that plague young patients are unmistakable. Children with moderate or severe dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, for instance, carry a mutation that prevents them from making type VII collagen. The babies suffer wounds and excessive bleeding and tend to receive a quick diagnosis within the first 6 months of life, according to Andy Orth, chief commercial officer at Krystal Bio, manufacturer of a new wound-healing gene therapy, Vyjuvek, for the disorder.

Other rare neurologic or muscular diseases can go undiagnosed for years. Until recently, drug companies and researchers have had little motivation to speed up the timeline because early diagnosis of a disease like DMD would not change the outcome, Dr. Nelson said.

But with gene therapy, prognoses are changing. And finding diseases early could soon mean preserving muscular function or preventing neurologic damage, Dr. Duncan said.

Newborn sequencing “is not standard of care yet, but it’s certainly coming,” Josh Peterson, MD, MPH, director of the center for precision medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

A recent survey of 238 specialists in rare diseases found that roughly 90% believe whole-genome sequencing should be available to all newborns. And 80% of those experts endorse 42 genes as disease predictors. Screening for rare diseases at birth could reveal a host of conditions in the first week of life and expedite treatment. But this strategy will often rely on primary care and pediatricians interpreting the results.

Most pediatricians think sequencing is a great idea, but they do not feel comfortable doing it themselves, Dr. Peterson said. The good news, he said, is that manufacturers have made screening tests straightforward. Some drug companies even offer free screenings for gene therapy candidates.

Dr. Peterson predicts pediatricians will need to be equipped to deliver negative results on their own, which will be the case for around 97%-99% of patients. They also will need to be clear on whether a negative result is definitive or if more testing is warranted.

Positive results are more nuanced. Genetic counseling is the ideal resource when delivering this kind of news to patients, but counselors are a scarce resource nationally – and particularly in rural areas, Dr. Nelson said. Physicians likely will have to rely on their own counseling training to some degree.

“I feel very strongly that genetic counselors are in short supply,” Ms. Gibbons in Colorado said. Patients need a friendly resource who can talk them through the disease and how it works. And that discussion is not a one-off, she said.

The number of board-certified genetic counselors in the United States has doubled to more than 6,000 in the past 10 years – a pace that is expected to continue, according to the National Society of Genetic Counselors. “However, the geographical distribution of genetic counselors is most concentrated in urban centers.”

Equally important to the counseling experience, according to Dr. Duncan at Boston Children’s, is a primary care physician’s network of connections. The best newborn screening rollouts across the country have succeeded because clinicians knew where to send people next and how to get families the help they needed, she said.

But she also cautioned that this learning curve will soon be overwhelming. As gene therapy expands, it may be difficult for primary care doctors to keep up with the science, treatment studies, and commercially available therapies. “It’s asking too much,” Dr. Duncan said.

The structure of primary care already stretches practitioners thin and will “affect how well precision medicine can be adopted and disseminated,” Dr. Peterson said. “I think that is a key issue.”

Artificial intelligence may offer a partial solution. Some genetic counseling models already exist, but their utility for clinicians so far is limited, Dr. Beales said. But he said he expects these tools to improve rapidly to help clinicians and patients. On the patient’s end, they may be able to answer questions and supplement basic genetic counseling. On the physician’s end, algorithms could help triage patients and help move them along to the next steps in the care pathway for these rare diseases.
 

The whole patient

Primary care physicians will not be expected to be experts in gene therapy or solely in charge of patient safety. They will have support from industry and subspecialists leading the development of these treatments, experts agreed.

But generalists should expect to be drawn into multidisciplinary care teams, be the sounding boards for patients making decisions about gene therapy, help arrange insurance coverage, and be the recipients of late-night phone calls about side effects.

All that, while never losing sight of the child’s holistic health. In children so sick, specialists, subspecialists, and even parents tend to focus only on the rare disease. The team can “get distracted from good normal routine care,” Dr. Nelson said. But these children aren’t exempt from check-ups, vaccine regimens, or the other diseases of childhood.

“In a world where we mitigate that core disease,” he said, “we need a partner in the general pediatrics community” investing in their long-term health.

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

In Colorado and Wyoming, nearly every baby born since 2020 is tested for signs of a mutation in the SMN1 gene, an indicator of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). And in 4 years, genetic counselor Melissa Gibbons has seen 24 positive results. She has prepped 24 different pediatricians and family doctors to deliver the news: A seemingly perfect newborn likely has a lethal genetic disease.

Most of these clinicians had never cared for a child with SMA before, nor did they know that lifesaving gene therapy for the condition now exists. Still, the physicians were foundational to getting babies emergency treatment and monitoring the child’s safety after the fact.

“They are boots on the ground for this kind of [work],” Ms. Gibbons, who is the newborn screen coordinator for SMA in both states, told this news organization. “I’m not even sure they realize it.” As of today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved 16 gene therapies for the treatment of rare and debilitating diseases once considered lethal, such as SMA and cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy.

The newest addition to the list of approvals is Elevidys, Sarepta’s gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). These conditions can now be mitigated, abated for years at a time, and even cured using treatments that tweak a patient’s DNA or RNA.

Hundreds of treatments are under development using the same mechanism. Viruses, liposomes, and other vectors of all kinds are being used to usher new genes into cells, correcting faulty copies or equipping a cell to fight disease. Cells gain the ability to make lifesaving proteins – proteins that heal wounds, restore muscle function, and fight cancer.

Within the decade, a significant fraction of the pediatric population will have gone through gene therapy, experts told this news organization. And primary care stands to be a linchpin in the scale-up of this kind of precision genetic medicine. Pediatricians and general practitioners will be central to finding and monitoring the patients that need these treatments. But the time and support doctors will need to fill that role remain scarce.

“This is a world we are creating right now, quite literally,” said Stanley Nelson, MD, director of the center for Duchenne muscular dystrophy at the University of California, Los Angeles. These cases – some before gene therapy and some after – will show up in primary care offices before the textbook is written.
 

Unknown side effects, new diseases

Even now, gene therapy is sequestered away in large academic medical research centers. The diagnosis, decision-making, and aftercare are handled by subspecialists working on clinical trials. While the research is ongoing, trial sponsors are keeping a close eye on enrolled patients. But that’s only until these drugs get market approval, Phil Beales, MD, chief medical officer at Congenica, a digital health company specializing in genome analysis support, said. Afterward, “the trialists will no longer have a role in looking after those patients.”

At that point, the role of primary care clinicians will be critically important. Although they probably will not manage gene-therapy patients on their own – comanaging them instead with subspecialists – they will be involved in the ordering and monitoring of safety labs and other tests.

General practitioners “need to know side effects because they are going to deal with side effects when someone calls them in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Beales, who also is chief executive officer of Axovia Therapeutics, a biotech company developing gene therapies.

Some of the side effects that come with gene therapy are established. Adeno-associated virus (AAV) or AAV-mediated gene therapies carry an increased risk for damage to the heart and liver, Dr. Nelson said. Other side effects are less well known and could be specific to the treatment and the tissue it targets. Primary care will be critical in detecting these unexpected side effects and expediting visits with subspecialists, he said.

In rural Wyoming, pediatricians and family doctors are especially important, Ms. Gibbons said. In the 30-90 days after gene therapy, patients need a lot of follow-up for safety reasons.

But aftercare for gene therapy will be more than just monitoring and managing side effects. The diseases themselves will change. Patients will be living with conditions that once were lethal.

In some cases, gene therapy may largely eliminate the disease. The data suggest that thalassemia, for example, can be largely cured for decades with one infusion of a patient’s genetically modified hematopoietic stem cells made using bluebird bio’s Zynteglo, according to Christy Duncan, MD, medical director of clinical research at the gene therapy program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

But other gene therapies, like the one for DMD, will offer a “spectrum of benefits,” Dr. Nelson said. They will be lifesaving, but the signs of the disease will linger. Clinicians will be learning alongside specialists what the new disease state for DMD and other rare diseases looks like after gene therapy.

“As we get hundreds of such therapies, [post–gene therapy] will amount to a substantial part of the pediatric population,” Dr. Nelson said.
 

Finding patients

Many of these rare diseases that plague young patients are unmistakable. Children with moderate or severe dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, for instance, carry a mutation that prevents them from making type VII collagen. The babies suffer wounds and excessive bleeding and tend to receive a quick diagnosis within the first 6 months of life, according to Andy Orth, chief commercial officer at Krystal Bio, manufacturer of a new wound-healing gene therapy, Vyjuvek, for the disorder.

Other rare neurologic or muscular diseases can go undiagnosed for years. Until recently, drug companies and researchers have had little motivation to speed up the timeline because early diagnosis of a disease like DMD would not change the outcome, Dr. Nelson said.

But with gene therapy, prognoses are changing. And finding diseases early could soon mean preserving muscular function or preventing neurologic damage, Dr. Duncan said.

Newborn sequencing “is not standard of care yet, but it’s certainly coming,” Josh Peterson, MD, MPH, director of the center for precision medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

A recent survey of 238 specialists in rare diseases found that roughly 90% believe whole-genome sequencing should be available to all newborns. And 80% of those experts endorse 42 genes as disease predictors. Screening for rare diseases at birth could reveal a host of conditions in the first week of life and expedite treatment. But this strategy will often rely on primary care and pediatricians interpreting the results.

Most pediatricians think sequencing is a great idea, but they do not feel comfortable doing it themselves, Dr. Peterson said. The good news, he said, is that manufacturers have made screening tests straightforward. Some drug companies even offer free screenings for gene therapy candidates.

Dr. Peterson predicts pediatricians will need to be equipped to deliver negative results on their own, which will be the case for around 97%-99% of patients. They also will need to be clear on whether a negative result is definitive or if more testing is warranted.

Positive results are more nuanced. Genetic counseling is the ideal resource when delivering this kind of news to patients, but counselors are a scarce resource nationally – and particularly in rural areas, Dr. Nelson said. Physicians likely will have to rely on their own counseling training to some degree.

“I feel very strongly that genetic counselors are in short supply,” Ms. Gibbons in Colorado said. Patients need a friendly resource who can talk them through the disease and how it works. And that discussion is not a one-off, she said.

The number of board-certified genetic counselors in the United States has doubled to more than 6,000 in the past 10 years – a pace that is expected to continue, according to the National Society of Genetic Counselors. “However, the geographical distribution of genetic counselors is most concentrated in urban centers.”

Equally important to the counseling experience, according to Dr. Duncan at Boston Children’s, is a primary care physician’s network of connections. The best newborn screening rollouts across the country have succeeded because clinicians knew where to send people next and how to get families the help they needed, she said.

But she also cautioned that this learning curve will soon be overwhelming. As gene therapy expands, it may be difficult for primary care doctors to keep up with the science, treatment studies, and commercially available therapies. “It’s asking too much,” Dr. Duncan said.

The structure of primary care already stretches practitioners thin and will “affect how well precision medicine can be adopted and disseminated,” Dr. Peterson said. “I think that is a key issue.”

Artificial intelligence may offer a partial solution. Some genetic counseling models already exist, but their utility for clinicians so far is limited, Dr. Beales said. But he said he expects these tools to improve rapidly to help clinicians and patients. On the patient’s end, they may be able to answer questions and supplement basic genetic counseling. On the physician’s end, algorithms could help triage patients and help move them along to the next steps in the care pathway for these rare diseases.
 

The whole patient

Primary care physicians will not be expected to be experts in gene therapy or solely in charge of patient safety. They will have support from industry and subspecialists leading the development of these treatments, experts agreed.

But generalists should expect to be drawn into multidisciplinary care teams, be the sounding boards for patients making decisions about gene therapy, help arrange insurance coverage, and be the recipients of late-night phone calls about side effects.

All that, while never losing sight of the child’s holistic health. In children so sick, specialists, subspecialists, and even parents tend to focus only on the rare disease. The team can “get distracted from good normal routine care,” Dr. Nelson said. But these children aren’t exempt from check-ups, vaccine regimens, or the other diseases of childhood.

“In a world where we mitigate that core disease,” he said, “we need a partner in the general pediatrics community” investing in their long-term health.

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

In January 2022, Anthony Arenz, a 51-year-old living in Mesa, Ariz., breathed a small sigh of relief.

The Galleri blood test, which screens for 50 types of cancer, hadn’t detected any positive signs.

It would be welcome news to anyone but especially to a firefighter with a 9% greater risk of developing cancer and a 14% greater risk of dying from it than the average person. The Mesa unit had lost two servicemen to cancer in the past 3 years. Both were more than a decade younger than Mr. Arenz.

When the city of Mesa offered additional free screening – including a full-body MRI – to firefighters over 50, Mr. Arenz initially shrugged it off. With a negative Galleri test in hand, he didn’t want to spend more time dwelling on it.

Still, he began to feel a creeping guilt for skipping a test that many of his fallen colleagues hadn’t been offered. He tried to soothe his anxiety with research. A look through the company’s website didn’t set him at ease. According to Grail Bio, a test result of “no cancer signal detected” does not rule out cancer.

Mr. Arenz booked his free MRI.

The results left him heavy: stage I kidney cancer. The Galleri test had missed it.

Mr. Arenz received his free Galleri test through a cancer screening program funded by the city of Mesa. The program is housed at Vincere Cancer Center in Scottsdale, Ariz. Under the leadership of radiation oncologist and Vincere co-owner Vershalee Shukla, MD, the program currently screens first responders in more than 10 Arizona cities at no cost to them.

Vincere began using Galleri shortly after the test launched for consumers in June 2021. Since then, the first responder program has become the largest commercial user of the test in North America.

But the ability of the Galleri test to identify cancer and, perhaps more importantly, the fallout from erroneous results have been under scrutiny since the test’s launch. The Galleri test, which has not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is so new that few know what incorrect results look like in practice and how often they might occur.

After running the test on about 2,000 servicemen and servicewomen, Dr. Shukla can offer some insight about the test’s real-world value in a high-risk population.

“Cancer screening is a very complicated issue,” Dr. Shukla said in an interview. “Being honest, the tests are good but are not ready yet [for wider use].”

Mr. Arenz was not the only firefighter who got a surprise after taking a Galleri test.

In nearby Phoenix, 51-year-old firefighter Mike Curtis knew his risk for cancer was high, but he wasn’t that worried. Mr. Curtis had been running into fires since he was 17. His dad, also a firefighter, had died of cancer at age 58.

Mr. Curtis had taken the Vincere Cancer Center up on every free screening service since the program began in late 2018 – well before Dr. Shukla started using Galleri in 2021. His most recent lung CT was clear. But he underwent the Galleri test just to stay vigilant.

His result was a shock. The test detected signs of cancer.

Mr. Curtis decided to tell no one, not even his wife. He’d bear the bad news alone until he was certain.

Dr. Shukla, however, immediately doubted the blood test result. She expedited several follow-up tests. One week, a PET, and CT of the abdomen and pelvis later, her hunch was confirmed. The Galleri test result was wrong, Mr. Curtis did not have cancer.

The price of his peace of mind: an extensive workup with a $4,000 price tag. Fortunately, the bill was covered by the screening program.

Overall, in just over 18 months of using the blood test, Dr. Shukla has only encountered 1 other false positive out of about 2,000 Galleri results.

She also discovered two positive signals for cancer using Galleri that were confirmed with follow-up tests. One was a chordoma, a rare type of bone cancer, and the other was a squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The Galleri test caught both remarkably early, in time for treatment.

For Dr. Shukla, however, false negatives were particularly “horrible.” Mr. Arenz’s was just 1 of 28 cancers that the blood test missed. And because 500 negative tests are yet to be validated, the 28 false negatives may be an underestimate.

In her experience, the binary test result – a simple positive or negative cancer signal – is an oversimplification of risk, she said. It “gives a false perception that you have cancer or you don’t,” although the test itself is not definitive.

Grail senior medical director Whitney Jones, MD, agreed that the test is not meant to be a stand-alone screening test for cancer. The purpose of the Galleri test is to “complement other screenings, not replace them,” Dr. Jones told this news organization.

According to an analysis of Galleri data and Dr. Shukla’s experience, the test’s specificity was over 99%. That means the test successfully minimizes false positives.

But the test’s sensitivity was much lower. From data from first responders, Dr. Shukla determined the sensitivity to be 6.7%. That means the test misses about 93 of every 100 cancers. According to Grail’s latest data from more than 6,300 people older than 50, the test’s sensitivity was 29%.

Specificity and sensitivity are metrics used to credential a test and establish confidence in its ability to detect the target disease. A test with high specificity can correctly identify patients who do not have the condition in question, while a test with high sensitivity can correctly identify patients who do have the disease. But there are trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. One value is increased at the expense of the other.

It’s normal for a cancer screening test to prioritize specificity, according to Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston. In a test like Galleri, which is meant to be an adjunct to other screening modalities, “at least we are seeing a good specificity, which is important, because we don’t want false positives, where the downstream impact on the patient can be high.”

Overall, Dr. Jones said, Grail Bio’s aim is to build a test that’s sensitive enough to catch the most dangerous cancers without inundating the healthcare system with false positives. In addition, Dr. Jones explained, sensitivity varies by cancer type. It tends to be lower for cancers for which other screening modalities are available, as well as for earlier-stage disease.

However, the Galleri sensitivity values are “a little bit scary,” said Ji-Hyun Lee, DrPH, professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida and director of the division of quantitative sciences at the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, both in Gainesville. Dr. Lee, who is not affiliated with Grail, reviewed the company’s publicly available data as well as Dr. Shukla’s data at the request of this news organization.

While there’s no definitive threshold for sensitivity, miss rates as high as 93% and 71% “provide little confidence in the [accuracy of the] test,” Dr. Lee said.

Positive and negative predictive values, however, are more clinically relevant measures of a screening test. These numbers indicate how likely it is that a patient’s results are true and therefore how worried they should be about a positive result and how much they should trust a negative result.

Galleri’s data in the over-50 population and Dr. Shukla’s in first responders suggest the test’s negative predictive value is very high – 98.6% and 98.1%, respectively – which means most people can trust a negative test result.

The positive predictive value, however, was less straightforward. In first responders, Dr. Shukla found that only half of positive Galleri tests were confirmed cases of cancer. And an analysis of Grail’s data found that only 38% of positive Galleri tests – 35 of 92 tests – represented a validated cancer diagnosis.

“In a clinical setting, positive predictive value is more usable for decision-making for the patient,” said Dr. Lee. “Positive predictive value isn’t always high, because everything doesn’t always transfer perfectly to the clinic.” But in the general population, if only 38% of patients with positive Galleri results truly have cancer, the test is “not quite useful to make a decision for the patient or the providers.”

Galleri may also be a costly prospect for patients, no matter the result, cautioned Electra Paskett, PhD, an epidemiologist and cancer screening expert at Ohio State University, Columbus. A positive Galleri test leads to a cascade of follow-up diagnostic tests, which payers may not cover. For a negative result, Galleri recommends that the patient undergo screening again in a year, at an annual cost of $950 plus the cost of any follow-up testing when Galleri does pick something up.

“If a provider wants to offer the Galleri test, all those things need to be made abundantly clear, in my opinion,” Dr. Paskett said.

Following the negative Galleri test, Mr. Arenz’s cancer didn’t slip through the cracks because he received other advanced imaging free of charge. But whether all doctors will go to such lengths to back up Galleri results, even for patients with negative results, is unknown.

A negative result can give patients “a huge false sense of security,” said Dr. Shukla. And if a test is positive, the workup isn’t simple. Chasing cancer, especially one that’s not really there, can be nerve-wracking and expensive.

The question, then, is why perform the Galleri test at all if results require so much validation?

Dr. Parikh explained that a high-risk group such as firefighters represents an ideal-use case for Galleri and other liquid biopsy tests. But she noted that she would be “wary of the ability of the system to manage this test en masse” were the test to be used more widely in the general population.

Dr. Shukla said it’s less about the results she’s getting today and more about making the test more effective for her patients in the future. First responders need a test such as this that can quickly identify multiple cancers. However, to improve the test, Grail needs more data from this high-risk population. That’s what she’s after.

Mr. Curtis doesn’t regret taking the Galleri test. The emotional toll of thinking he had cancer for a few days wasn’t too high a price, in his opinion. It’s part of cancer screening. But he acknowledged that it would have been a much more burdensome experience had he’d been financially responsible for the workup or if he hadn’t had Dr. Shukla to manage his case from start to finish.

Because it was free, Mr. Arenz doesn’t regret undergoing the Galleri test either. But he tells his coworkers to check the site, do their research, and get more screening.

“Any medical center that’s just doing this one test, you just have to be careful,” Dr. Shukla said. “It’s not that easy.”

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

In January 2022, Anthony Arenz, a 51-year-old living in Mesa, Ariz., breathed a small sigh of relief.

The Galleri blood test, which screens for 50 types of cancer, hadn’t detected any positive signs.

It would be welcome news to anyone but especially to a firefighter with a 9% greater risk of developing cancer and a 14% greater risk of dying from it than the average person. The Mesa unit had lost two servicemen to cancer in the past 3 years. Both were more than a decade younger than Mr. Arenz.

When the city of Mesa offered additional free screening – including a full-body MRI – to firefighters over 50, Mr. Arenz initially shrugged it off. With a negative Galleri test in hand, he didn’t want to spend more time dwelling on it.

Still, he began to feel a creeping guilt for skipping a test that many of his fallen colleagues hadn’t been offered. He tried to soothe his anxiety with research. A look through the company’s website didn’t set him at ease. According to Grail Bio, a test result of “no cancer signal detected” does not rule out cancer.

Mr. Arenz booked his free MRI.

The results left him heavy: stage I kidney cancer. The Galleri test had missed it.

Mr. Arenz received his free Galleri test through a cancer screening program funded by the city of Mesa. The program is housed at Vincere Cancer Center in Scottsdale, Ariz. Under the leadership of radiation oncologist and Vincere co-owner Vershalee Shukla, MD, the program currently screens first responders in more than 10 Arizona cities at no cost to them.

Vincere began using Galleri shortly after the test launched for consumers in June 2021. Since then, the first responder program has become the largest commercial user of the test in North America.

But the ability of the Galleri test to identify cancer and, perhaps more importantly, the fallout from erroneous results have been under scrutiny since the test’s launch. The Galleri test, which has not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is so new that few know what incorrect results look like in practice and how often they might occur.

After running the test on about 2,000 servicemen and servicewomen, Dr. Shukla can offer some insight about the test’s real-world value in a high-risk population.

“Cancer screening is a very complicated issue,” Dr. Shukla said in an interview. “Being honest, the tests are good but are not ready yet [for wider use].”

Mr. Arenz was not the only firefighter who got a surprise after taking a Galleri test.

In nearby Phoenix, 51-year-old firefighter Mike Curtis knew his risk for cancer was high, but he wasn’t that worried. Mr. Curtis had been running into fires since he was 17. His dad, also a firefighter, had died of cancer at age 58.

Mr. Curtis had taken the Vincere Cancer Center up on every free screening service since the program began in late 2018 – well before Dr. Shukla started using Galleri in 2021. His most recent lung CT was clear. But he underwent the Galleri test just to stay vigilant.

His result was a shock. The test detected signs of cancer.

Mr. Curtis decided to tell no one, not even his wife. He’d bear the bad news alone until he was certain.

Dr. Shukla, however, immediately doubted the blood test result. She expedited several follow-up tests. One week, a PET, and CT of the abdomen and pelvis later, her hunch was confirmed. The Galleri test result was wrong, Mr. Curtis did not have cancer.

The price of his peace of mind: an extensive workup with a $4,000 price tag. Fortunately, the bill was covered by the screening program.

Overall, in just over 18 months of using the blood test, Dr. Shukla has only encountered 1 other false positive out of about 2,000 Galleri results.

She also discovered two positive signals for cancer using Galleri that were confirmed with follow-up tests. One was a chordoma, a rare type of bone cancer, and the other was a squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The Galleri test caught both remarkably early, in time for treatment.

For Dr. Shukla, however, false negatives were particularly “horrible.” Mr. Arenz’s was just 1 of 28 cancers that the blood test missed. And because 500 negative tests are yet to be validated, the 28 false negatives may be an underestimate.

In her experience, the binary test result – a simple positive or negative cancer signal – is an oversimplification of risk, she said. It “gives a false perception that you have cancer or you don’t,” although the test itself is not definitive.

Grail senior medical director Whitney Jones, MD, agreed that the test is not meant to be a stand-alone screening test for cancer. The purpose of the Galleri test is to “complement other screenings, not replace them,” Dr. Jones told this news organization.

According to an analysis of Galleri data and Dr. Shukla’s experience, the test’s specificity was over 99%. That means the test successfully minimizes false positives.

But the test’s sensitivity was much lower. From data from first responders, Dr. Shukla determined the sensitivity to be 6.7%. That means the test misses about 93 of every 100 cancers. According to Grail’s latest data from more than 6,300 people older than 50, the test’s sensitivity was 29%.

Specificity and sensitivity are metrics used to credential a test and establish confidence in its ability to detect the target disease. A test with high specificity can correctly identify patients who do not have the condition in question, while a test with high sensitivity can correctly identify patients who do have the disease. But there are trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. One value is increased at the expense of the other.

It’s normal for a cancer screening test to prioritize specificity, according to Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston. In a test like Galleri, which is meant to be an adjunct to other screening modalities, “at least we are seeing a good specificity, which is important, because we don’t want false positives, where the downstream impact on the patient can be high.”

Overall, Dr. Jones said, Grail Bio’s aim is to build a test that’s sensitive enough to catch the most dangerous cancers without inundating the healthcare system with false positives. In addition, Dr. Jones explained, sensitivity varies by cancer type. It tends to be lower for cancers for which other screening modalities are available, as well as for earlier-stage disease.

However, the Galleri sensitivity values are “a little bit scary,” said Ji-Hyun Lee, DrPH, professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida and director of the division of quantitative sciences at the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, both in Gainesville. Dr. Lee, who is not affiliated with Grail, reviewed the company’s publicly available data as well as Dr. Shukla’s data at the request of this news organization.

While there’s no definitive threshold for sensitivity, miss rates as high as 93% and 71% “provide little confidence in the [accuracy of the] test,” Dr. Lee said.

Positive and negative predictive values, however, are more clinically relevant measures of a screening test. These numbers indicate how likely it is that a patient’s results are true and therefore how worried they should be about a positive result and how much they should trust a negative result.

Galleri’s data in the over-50 population and Dr. Shukla’s in first responders suggest the test’s negative predictive value is very high – 98.6% and 98.1%, respectively – which means most people can trust a negative test result.

The positive predictive value, however, was less straightforward. In first responders, Dr. Shukla found that only half of positive Galleri tests were confirmed cases of cancer. And an analysis of Grail’s data found that only 38% of positive Galleri tests – 35 of 92 tests – represented a validated cancer diagnosis.

“In a clinical setting, positive predictive value is more usable for decision-making for the patient,” said Dr. Lee. “Positive predictive value isn’t always high, because everything doesn’t always transfer perfectly to the clinic.” But in the general population, if only 38% of patients with positive Galleri results truly have cancer, the test is “not quite useful to make a decision for the patient or the providers.”

Galleri may also be a costly prospect for patients, no matter the result, cautioned Electra Paskett, PhD, an epidemiologist and cancer screening expert at Ohio State University, Columbus. A positive Galleri test leads to a cascade of follow-up diagnostic tests, which payers may not cover. For a negative result, Galleri recommends that the patient undergo screening again in a year, at an annual cost of $950 plus the cost of any follow-up testing when Galleri does pick something up.

“If a provider wants to offer the Galleri test, all those things need to be made abundantly clear, in my opinion,” Dr. Paskett said.

Following the negative Galleri test, Mr. Arenz’s cancer didn’t slip through the cracks because he received other advanced imaging free of charge. But whether all doctors will go to such lengths to back up Galleri results, even for patients with negative results, is unknown.

A negative result can give patients “a huge false sense of security,” said Dr. Shukla. And if a test is positive, the workup isn’t simple. Chasing cancer, especially one that’s not really there, can be nerve-wracking and expensive.

The question, then, is why perform the Galleri test at all if results require so much validation?

Dr. Parikh explained that a high-risk group such as firefighters represents an ideal-use case for Galleri and other liquid biopsy tests. But she noted that she would be “wary of the ability of the system to manage this test en masse” were the test to be used more widely in the general population.

Dr. Shukla said it’s less about the results she’s getting today and more about making the test more effective for her patients in the future. First responders need a test such as this that can quickly identify multiple cancers. However, to improve the test, Grail needs more data from this high-risk population. That’s what she’s after.

Mr. Curtis doesn’t regret taking the Galleri test. The emotional toll of thinking he had cancer for a few days wasn’t too high a price, in his opinion. It’s part of cancer screening. But he acknowledged that it would have been a much more burdensome experience had he’d been financially responsible for the workup or if he hadn’t had Dr. Shukla to manage his case from start to finish.

Because it was free, Mr. Arenz doesn’t regret undergoing the Galleri test either. But he tells his coworkers to check the site, do their research, and get more screening.

“Any medical center that’s just doing this one test, you just have to be careful,” Dr. Shukla said. “It’s not that easy.”

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

In January 2022, Anthony Arenz, a 51-year-old living in Mesa, Ariz., breathed a small sigh of relief.

The Galleri blood test, which screens for 50 types of cancer, hadn’t detected any positive signs.

It would be welcome news to anyone but especially to a firefighter with a 9% greater risk of developing cancer and a 14% greater risk of dying from it than the average person. The Mesa unit had lost two servicemen to cancer in the past 3 years. Both were more than a decade younger than Mr. Arenz.

When the city of Mesa offered additional free screening – including a full-body MRI – to firefighters over 50, Mr. Arenz initially shrugged it off. With a negative Galleri test in hand, he didn’t want to spend more time dwelling on it.

Still, he began to feel a creeping guilt for skipping a test that many of his fallen colleagues hadn’t been offered. He tried to soothe his anxiety with research. A look through the company’s website didn’t set him at ease. According to Grail Bio, a test result of “no cancer signal detected” does not rule out cancer.

Mr. Arenz booked his free MRI.

The results left him heavy: stage I kidney cancer. The Galleri test had missed it.

Mr. Arenz received his free Galleri test through a cancer screening program funded by the city of Mesa. The program is housed at Vincere Cancer Center in Scottsdale, Ariz. Under the leadership of radiation oncologist and Vincere co-owner Vershalee Shukla, MD, the program currently screens first responders in more than 10 Arizona cities at no cost to them.

Vincere began using Galleri shortly after the test launched for consumers in June 2021. Since then, the first responder program has become the largest commercial user of the test in North America.

But the ability of the Galleri test to identify cancer and, perhaps more importantly, the fallout from erroneous results have been under scrutiny since the test’s launch. The Galleri test, which has not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is so new that few know what incorrect results look like in practice and how often they might occur.

After running the test on about 2,000 servicemen and servicewomen, Dr. Shukla can offer some insight about the test’s real-world value in a high-risk population.

“Cancer screening is a very complicated issue,” Dr. Shukla said in an interview. “Being honest, the tests are good but are not ready yet [for wider use].”

Mr. Arenz was not the only firefighter who got a surprise after taking a Galleri test.

In nearby Phoenix, 51-year-old firefighter Mike Curtis knew his risk for cancer was high, but he wasn’t that worried. Mr. Curtis had been running into fires since he was 17. His dad, also a firefighter, had died of cancer at age 58.

Mr. Curtis had taken the Vincere Cancer Center up on every free screening service since the program began in late 2018 – well before Dr. Shukla started using Galleri in 2021. His most recent lung CT was clear. But he underwent the Galleri test just to stay vigilant.

His result was a shock. The test detected signs of cancer.

Mr. Curtis decided to tell no one, not even his wife. He’d bear the bad news alone until he was certain.

Dr. Shukla, however, immediately doubted the blood test result. She expedited several follow-up tests. One week, a PET, and CT of the abdomen and pelvis later, her hunch was confirmed. The Galleri test result was wrong, Mr. Curtis did not have cancer.

The price of his peace of mind: an extensive workup with a $4,000 price tag. Fortunately, the bill was covered by the screening program.

Overall, in just over 18 months of using the blood test, Dr. Shukla has only encountered 1 other false positive out of about 2,000 Galleri results.

She also discovered two positive signals for cancer using Galleri that were confirmed with follow-up tests. One was a chordoma, a rare type of bone cancer, and the other was a squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The Galleri test caught both remarkably early, in time for treatment.

For Dr. Shukla, however, false negatives were particularly “horrible.” Mr. Arenz’s was just 1 of 28 cancers that the blood test missed. And because 500 negative tests are yet to be validated, the 28 false negatives may be an underestimate.

In her experience, the binary test result – a simple positive or negative cancer signal – is an oversimplification of risk, she said. It “gives a false perception that you have cancer or you don’t,” although the test itself is not definitive.

Grail senior medical director Whitney Jones, MD, agreed that the test is not meant to be a stand-alone screening test for cancer. The purpose of the Galleri test is to “complement other screenings, not replace them,” Dr. Jones told this news organization.

According to an analysis of Galleri data and Dr. Shukla’s experience, the test’s specificity was over 99%. That means the test successfully minimizes false positives.

But the test’s sensitivity was much lower. From data from first responders, Dr. Shukla determined the sensitivity to be 6.7%. That means the test misses about 93 of every 100 cancers. According to Grail’s latest data from more than 6,300 people older than 50, the test’s sensitivity was 29%.

Specificity and sensitivity are metrics used to credential a test and establish confidence in its ability to detect the target disease. A test with high specificity can correctly identify patients who do not have the condition in question, while a test with high sensitivity can correctly identify patients who do have the disease. But there are trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. One value is increased at the expense of the other.

It’s normal for a cancer screening test to prioritize specificity, according to Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston. In a test like Galleri, which is meant to be an adjunct to other screening modalities, “at least we are seeing a good specificity, which is important, because we don’t want false positives, where the downstream impact on the patient can be high.”

Overall, Dr. Jones said, Grail Bio’s aim is to build a test that’s sensitive enough to catch the most dangerous cancers without inundating the healthcare system with false positives. In addition, Dr. Jones explained, sensitivity varies by cancer type. It tends to be lower for cancers for which other screening modalities are available, as well as for earlier-stage disease.

However, the Galleri sensitivity values are “a little bit scary,” said Ji-Hyun Lee, DrPH, professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida and director of the division of quantitative sciences at the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, both in Gainesville. Dr. Lee, who is not affiliated with Grail, reviewed the company’s publicly available data as well as Dr. Shukla’s data at the request of this news organization.

While there’s no definitive threshold for sensitivity, miss rates as high as 93% and 71% “provide little confidence in the [accuracy of the] test,” Dr. Lee said.

Positive and negative predictive values, however, are more clinically relevant measures of a screening test. These numbers indicate how likely it is that a patient’s results are true and therefore how worried they should be about a positive result and how much they should trust a negative result.

Galleri’s data in the over-50 population and Dr. Shukla’s in first responders suggest the test’s negative predictive value is very high – 98.6% and 98.1%, respectively – which means most people can trust a negative test result.

The positive predictive value, however, was less straightforward. In first responders, Dr. Shukla found that only half of positive Galleri tests were confirmed cases of cancer. And an analysis of Grail’s data found that only 38% of positive Galleri tests – 35 of 92 tests – represented a validated cancer diagnosis.

“In a clinical setting, positive predictive value is more usable for decision-making for the patient,” said Dr. Lee. “Positive predictive value isn’t always high, because everything doesn’t always transfer perfectly to the clinic.” But in the general population, if only 38% of patients with positive Galleri results truly have cancer, the test is “not quite useful to make a decision for the patient or the providers.”

Galleri may also be a costly prospect for patients, no matter the result, cautioned Electra Paskett, PhD, an epidemiologist and cancer screening expert at Ohio State University, Columbus. A positive Galleri test leads to a cascade of follow-up diagnostic tests, which payers may not cover. For a negative result, Galleri recommends that the patient undergo screening again in a year, at an annual cost of $950 plus the cost of any follow-up testing when Galleri does pick something up.

“If a provider wants to offer the Galleri test, all those things need to be made abundantly clear, in my opinion,” Dr. Paskett said.

Following the negative Galleri test, Mr. Arenz’s cancer didn’t slip through the cracks because he received other advanced imaging free of charge. But whether all doctors will go to such lengths to back up Galleri results, even for patients with negative results, is unknown.

A negative result can give patients “a huge false sense of security,” said Dr. Shukla. And if a test is positive, the workup isn’t simple. Chasing cancer, especially one that’s not really there, can be nerve-wracking and expensive.

The question, then, is why perform the Galleri test at all if results require so much validation?

Dr. Parikh explained that a high-risk group such as firefighters represents an ideal-use case for Galleri and other liquid biopsy tests. But she noted that she would be “wary of the ability of the system to manage this test en masse” were the test to be used more widely in the general population.

Dr. Shukla said it’s less about the results she’s getting today and more about making the test more effective for her patients in the future. First responders need a test such as this that can quickly identify multiple cancers. However, to improve the test, Grail needs more data from this high-risk population. That’s what she’s after.

Mr. Curtis doesn’t regret taking the Galleri test. The emotional toll of thinking he had cancer for a few days wasn’t too high a price, in his opinion. It’s part of cancer screening. But he acknowledged that it would have been a much more burdensome experience had he’d been financially responsible for the workup or if he hadn’t had Dr. Shukla to manage his case from start to finish.

Because it was free, Mr. Arenz doesn’t regret undergoing the Galleri test either. But he tells his coworkers to check the site, do their research, and get more screening.

“Any medical center that’s just doing this one test, you just have to be careful,” Dr. Shukla said. “It’s not that easy.”

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

Scans of the lungs of pot users have turned up an alarming surprise: Regular smokers of marijuana appear to be at greater risk for lung damage than are people who smoke tobacco alone.

“There’s a public perception that marijuana is safe,” said Giselle Revah, MD, a radiologist at the University of Ottawa. “This study is raising concern that this might not be true.”

Dr. Revah said she can often tell immediately if a CT scan is from a heavy or long-time cigarette smoker. But with the legalization and increased use of marijuana in Canada and many U.S. states, she began to wonder what cannabis use does to the lungs and whether she would be able to differentiate its effects from those of cigarette smoking.

She and her colleagues retrospectively examined chest CT scans from 56 marijuana smokers and compared them to scans of 57 nonsmokers and 33 users of tobacco alone.

Emphysema was significantly more common among marijuana smokers (75%) than among nonsmokers (5%). When matched for age and sex, 93% of marijuana smokers had emphysema, vs. 67% of those who smoked tobacco only (P = .009).

Without age matching, rates of emphysema remained slightly higher among the marijuana users (75% vs. 67%), although the difference was no longer statistically significant. Yet more than 40% of the marijuana group was younger than 50 years, and all of the tobacco-only users were 50 or older – meaning that marijuana smokers may develop lung damage earlier or with less exposure, Dr. Revah said.

Dr. Revah added that her colleagues in family medicine have said the findings match their clinical experience. “In their practices, they have younger patients with emphysema,” she said.

Marijuana smokers also showed higher rates of airway inflammation, including bronchial thickening, bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction, with and without sex- and age-matching, the researchers found.

The findings are “not even a little bit surprising,” according to Alan Kaplan, MD, a family physician in Ontario who has expertise in respiratory health. He is the author of a 2021 review on cannabis and lung health.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article by Dr. Revah and colleagues , pulmonary experts noted that the new data give context to a recent uptick in referrals for nontraumatic pneumothorax. The authors said they had received 22 of these referrals during the past 2 years but that they had received only 6 between 2012 and 2020. “Many, but not all, of these patients have a documented history of marijuana use,” they wrote.

One reason for the additional damage may be the way marijuana is inhaled, Dr. Kaplan said. Marijuana smokers “take a big breath in, and they really push it into lungs and hold pressure on it, which may actually cause alveoli to distend over time.”

Because most marijuana smokers in the study also smoked cigarettes, whether the observed damage was caused by marijuana alone or occurred through a synergy with tobacco is impossible to discern, Dr. Revah said.

Still, the results are striking, she said, because the marijuana group was compared to tobacco users who had an extensive smoking history – 25 to 100 pack-years – and who were from a high-risk lung cancer screening program.

Dr. Revah and her colleagues are now conducting a larger, prospective study to see whether they can confirm their findings.

“The message to physicians is to ask about cannabis smoking,” Dr. Kaplan said. In the past, people have been reluctant to admit to using cannabis. Even with legalization, they may be slow to tell their physicians. But clinicians should still try to identify frequent users, especially those who are predisposed for lung conditions. If they intend to use the drug, the advice should be, “There are safer ways to use cannabis,” he said.

Dr. Revah and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Scans of the lungs of pot users have turned up an alarming surprise: Regular smokers of marijuana appear to be at greater risk for lung damage than are people who smoke tobacco alone.

“There’s a public perception that marijuana is safe,” said Giselle Revah, MD, a radiologist at the University of Ottawa. “This study is raising concern that this might not be true.”

Dr. Revah said she can often tell immediately if a CT scan is from a heavy or long-time cigarette smoker. But with the legalization and increased use of marijuana in Canada and many U.S. states, she began to wonder what cannabis use does to the lungs and whether she would be able to differentiate its effects from those of cigarette smoking.

She and her colleagues retrospectively examined chest CT scans from 56 marijuana smokers and compared them to scans of 57 nonsmokers and 33 users of tobacco alone.

Emphysema was significantly more common among marijuana smokers (75%) than among nonsmokers (5%). When matched for age and sex, 93% of marijuana smokers had emphysema, vs. 67% of those who smoked tobacco only (P = .009).

Without age matching, rates of emphysema remained slightly higher among the marijuana users (75% vs. 67%), although the difference was no longer statistically significant. Yet more than 40% of the marijuana group was younger than 50 years, and all of the tobacco-only users were 50 or older – meaning that marijuana smokers may develop lung damage earlier or with less exposure, Dr. Revah said.

Dr. Revah added that her colleagues in family medicine have said the findings match their clinical experience. “In their practices, they have younger patients with emphysema,” she said.

Marijuana smokers also showed higher rates of airway inflammation, including bronchial thickening, bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction, with and without sex- and age-matching, the researchers found.

The findings are “not even a little bit surprising,” according to Alan Kaplan, MD, a family physician in Ontario who has expertise in respiratory health. He is the author of a 2021 review on cannabis and lung health.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article by Dr. Revah and colleagues , pulmonary experts noted that the new data give context to a recent uptick in referrals for nontraumatic pneumothorax. The authors said they had received 22 of these referrals during the past 2 years but that they had received only 6 between 2012 and 2020. “Many, but not all, of these patients have a documented history of marijuana use,” they wrote.

One reason for the additional damage may be the way marijuana is inhaled, Dr. Kaplan said. Marijuana smokers “take a big breath in, and they really push it into lungs and hold pressure on it, which may actually cause alveoli to distend over time.”

Because most marijuana smokers in the study also smoked cigarettes, whether the observed damage was caused by marijuana alone or occurred through a synergy with tobacco is impossible to discern, Dr. Revah said.

Still, the results are striking, she said, because the marijuana group was compared to tobacco users who had an extensive smoking history – 25 to 100 pack-years – and who were from a high-risk lung cancer screening program.

Dr. Revah and her colleagues are now conducting a larger, prospective study to see whether they can confirm their findings.

“The message to physicians is to ask about cannabis smoking,” Dr. Kaplan said. In the past, people have been reluctant to admit to using cannabis. Even with legalization, they may be slow to tell their physicians. But clinicians should still try to identify frequent users, especially those who are predisposed for lung conditions. If they intend to use the drug, the advice should be, “There are safer ways to use cannabis,” he said.

Dr. Revah and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Scans of the lungs of pot users have turned up an alarming surprise: Regular smokers of marijuana appear to be at greater risk for lung damage than are people who smoke tobacco alone.

“There’s a public perception that marijuana is safe,” said Giselle Revah, MD, a radiologist at the University of Ottawa. “This study is raising concern that this might not be true.”

Dr. Revah said she can often tell immediately if a CT scan is from a heavy or long-time cigarette smoker. But with the legalization and increased use of marijuana in Canada and many U.S. states, she began to wonder what cannabis use does to the lungs and whether she would be able to differentiate its effects from those of cigarette smoking.

She and her colleagues retrospectively examined chest CT scans from 56 marijuana smokers and compared them to scans of 57 nonsmokers and 33 users of tobacco alone.

Emphysema was significantly more common among marijuana smokers (75%) than among nonsmokers (5%). When matched for age and sex, 93% of marijuana smokers had emphysema, vs. 67% of those who smoked tobacco only (P = .009).

Without age matching, rates of emphysema remained slightly higher among the marijuana users (75% vs. 67%), although the difference was no longer statistically significant. Yet more than 40% of the marijuana group was younger than 50 years, and all of the tobacco-only users were 50 or older – meaning that marijuana smokers may develop lung damage earlier or with less exposure, Dr. Revah said.

Dr. Revah added that her colleagues in family medicine have said the findings match their clinical experience. “In their practices, they have younger patients with emphysema,” she said.

Marijuana smokers also showed higher rates of airway inflammation, including bronchial thickening, bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction, with and without sex- and age-matching, the researchers found.

The findings are “not even a little bit surprising,” according to Alan Kaplan, MD, a family physician in Ontario who has expertise in respiratory health. He is the author of a 2021 review on cannabis and lung health.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article by Dr. Revah and colleagues , pulmonary experts noted that the new data give context to a recent uptick in referrals for nontraumatic pneumothorax. The authors said they had received 22 of these referrals during the past 2 years but that they had received only 6 between 2012 and 2020. “Many, but not all, of these patients have a documented history of marijuana use,” they wrote.

One reason for the additional damage may be the way marijuana is inhaled, Dr. Kaplan said. Marijuana smokers “take a big breath in, and they really push it into lungs and hold pressure on it, which may actually cause alveoli to distend over time.”

Because most marijuana smokers in the study also smoked cigarettes, whether the observed damage was caused by marijuana alone or occurred through a synergy with tobacco is impossible to discern, Dr. Revah said.

Still, the results are striking, she said, because the marijuana group was compared to tobacco users who had an extensive smoking history – 25 to 100 pack-years – and who were from a high-risk lung cancer screening program.

Dr. Revah and her colleagues are now conducting a larger, prospective study to see whether they can confirm their findings.

“The message to physicians is to ask about cannabis smoking,” Dr. Kaplan said. In the past, people have been reluctant to admit to using cannabis. Even with legalization, they may be slow to tell their physicians. But clinicians should still try to identify frequent users, especially those who are predisposed for lung conditions. If they intend to use the drug, the advice should be, “There are safer ways to use cannabis,” he said.

Dr. Revah and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Several leading medical groups on Oct. 3 called on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate and prosecute those responsible for a recent spate of threats and attacks against hospitals and physicians who are providing gender-affirming care.

In an Oct. 3 letter, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the Children’s Hospital Association detailed the risk posed by these threats to physicians, patients, and the federally protected right to health care.

The letter comes during a campaign of intimidation and misinformation that has disrupted gender-related care in Seattle, Akron, Ohio, Nashville, Tenn., and Boston in the past few weeks. Hospitals across the country and their ambulatory sites have been forced to substantially increase protection, and “some providers have needed 24/7 security,” according to the letter.

Not only do the threats bully physicians providing gender-affirming care and the patients who receive that care, but “they have also disrupted many other services to families seeking care,” the letter claims.

According to STAT, many hospitals that provide gender-affirming care have responded to the threats by removing information about the treatment from their websites.

At one hospital, a new mother was separated from her preterm infant because the facility’s neonatal intensive care unit was locked down as the result of a bomb threat. (It’s not clear whether that incident is the same as a similar threat that led to the arrest of a 37-year-old Massachusetts woman, who is facing criminal charges in the episode.)

“The attacks are rooted in an intentional campaign of disinformation” by high-profile social media users, according to the letter. The medical organizations have also called on major tech companies, including TikTok, Twitter, and Meta, to do more to prevent the coordination of disinformation campaigns and violence against health care providers and patients.

“We now urge your office to take swift action to investigate and prosecute all organizations, individuals, and entities responsible,” the letter states.

“We cannot stand by as threats of violence against our members and their patients proliferate with little consequence. We call on the Department of Justice to investigate these attacks and social media platforms to reduce the spread of the misinformation enabling them,” AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, FAAP, said in a press release.

In addition to physical threats at their workplace, providers face threats on their personal social media accounts and harassment via phone and email. The letter notes that these unchecked attacks are coming after health care workers spent 3 years working on the front lines of a pandemic.

“Individuals in all workplaces have the right to a safe environment, out of harm’s way and free of intimidation or reprisal,” AMA President Jack Resneck Jr, MD, said in a statement. “The AMA will continue to work with federal, state, and local law enforcement officials to develop and implement strategies that protect hard-working, law-abiding physicians and other health care workers from senseless acts of violence, abuse, and intimidation.”

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

Several leading medical groups on Oct. 3 called on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate and prosecute those responsible for a recent spate of threats and attacks against hospitals and physicians who are providing gender-affirming care.

In an Oct. 3 letter, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the Children’s Hospital Association detailed the risk posed by these threats to physicians, patients, and the federally protected right to health care.

The letter comes during a campaign of intimidation and misinformation that has disrupted gender-related care in Seattle, Akron, Ohio, Nashville, Tenn., and Boston in the past few weeks. Hospitals across the country and their ambulatory sites have been forced to substantially increase protection, and “some providers have needed 24/7 security,” according to the letter.

Not only do the threats bully physicians providing gender-affirming care and the patients who receive that care, but “they have also disrupted many other services to families seeking care,” the letter claims.

According to STAT, many hospitals that provide gender-affirming care have responded to the threats by removing information about the treatment from their websites.

At one hospital, a new mother was separated from her preterm infant because the facility’s neonatal intensive care unit was locked down as the result of a bomb threat. (It’s not clear whether that incident is the same as a similar threat that led to the arrest of a 37-year-old Massachusetts woman, who is facing criminal charges in the episode.)

“The attacks are rooted in an intentional campaign of disinformation” by high-profile social media users, according to the letter. The medical organizations have also called on major tech companies, including TikTok, Twitter, and Meta, to do more to prevent the coordination of disinformation campaigns and violence against health care providers and patients.

“We now urge your office to take swift action to investigate and prosecute all organizations, individuals, and entities responsible,” the letter states.

“We cannot stand by as threats of violence against our members and their patients proliferate with little consequence. We call on the Department of Justice to investigate these attacks and social media platforms to reduce the spread of the misinformation enabling them,” AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, FAAP, said in a press release.

In addition to physical threats at their workplace, providers face threats on their personal social media accounts and harassment via phone and email. The letter notes that these unchecked attacks are coming after health care workers spent 3 years working on the front lines of a pandemic.

“Individuals in all workplaces have the right to a safe environment, out of harm’s way and free of intimidation or reprisal,” AMA President Jack Resneck Jr, MD, said in a statement. “The AMA will continue to work with federal, state, and local law enforcement officials to develop and implement strategies that protect hard-working, law-abiding physicians and other health care workers from senseless acts of violence, abuse, and intimidation.”

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

Several leading medical groups on Oct. 3 called on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate and prosecute those responsible for a recent spate of threats and attacks against hospitals and physicians who are providing gender-affirming care.

In an Oct. 3 letter, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the Children’s Hospital Association detailed the risk posed by these threats to physicians, patients, and the federally protected right to health care.

The letter comes during a campaign of intimidation and misinformation that has disrupted gender-related care in Seattle, Akron, Ohio, Nashville, Tenn., and Boston in the past few weeks. Hospitals across the country and their ambulatory sites have been forced to substantially increase protection, and “some providers have needed 24/7 security,” according to the letter.

Not only do the threats bully physicians providing gender-affirming care and the patients who receive that care, but “they have also disrupted many other services to families seeking care,” the letter claims.

According to STAT, many hospitals that provide gender-affirming care have responded to the threats by removing information about the treatment from their websites.

At one hospital, a new mother was separated from her preterm infant because the facility’s neonatal intensive care unit was locked down as the result of a bomb threat. (It’s not clear whether that incident is the same as a similar threat that led to the arrest of a 37-year-old Massachusetts woman, who is facing criminal charges in the episode.)

“The attacks are rooted in an intentional campaign of disinformation” by high-profile social media users, according to the letter. The medical organizations have also called on major tech companies, including TikTok, Twitter, and Meta, to do more to prevent the coordination of disinformation campaigns and violence against health care providers and patients.

“We now urge your office to take swift action to investigate and prosecute all organizations, individuals, and entities responsible,” the letter states.

“We cannot stand by as threats of violence against our members and their patients proliferate with little consequence. We call on the Department of Justice to investigate these attacks and social media platforms to reduce the spread of the misinformation enabling them,” AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, FAAP, said in a press release.

In addition to physical threats at their workplace, providers face threats on their personal social media accounts and harassment via phone and email. The letter notes that these unchecked attacks are coming after health care workers spent 3 years working on the front lines of a pandemic.

“Individuals in all workplaces have the right to a safe environment, out of harm’s way and free of intimidation or reprisal,” AMA President Jack Resneck Jr, MD, said in a statement. “The AMA will continue to work with federal, state, and local law enforcement officials to develop and implement strategies that protect hard-working, law-abiding physicians and other health care workers from senseless acts of violence, abuse, and intimidation.”

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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