The COVID-19 Pandemic Led To A Large Decline In Physician Gross Revenue Across All Specialties In 2020.

US health care use declined during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although utilization is known to have recovered in 2021 and 2022, it is unknown how revenue in 2020-22 varied by physician specialty and practice setting. This study linked medical claims from a large national federation of commercial health plans to physician and practice data to estimate pandemic-associated impacts on physician revenue (defined as payments to eligible physicians) by specialty and practice characteristics. Surgical specialties, emergency medicine, and medical subspecialties each experienced a greater than 9 percent adjusted gross revenue decline in 2020 relative to prepandemic baselines. By 2022, pathology and psychiatry revenue experienced robust recovery, whereas surgical and oncology revenue remained at or below baseline. Revenue recovery in 2022 was greater for physicians practicing in hospital-owned practices and in practices participating in accountable care organizations. Pandemic-associated revenue recovery in 2021 and 2022 varied by specialty and practice type. Given that physician financial instability is associated with health care consolidation and leaving practice, policy makers should closely monitor revenue trends among physicians in specialties or practice settings with sustained gross revenue reductions during the pandemic.

Physician Specialty Differences in Unprofessional Behaviors Observed and Reported by Coworkers.

Importance: Because unprofessional behaviors are associated with patient complications, malpractice claims, and well-being concerns, monitoring concerns requiring investigation and individuals identified in multiple reports may provide important opportunities for health care leaders to support all team members. Objective: To examine the distribution of physicians by specialty who demonstrate unprofessional behaviors measured through safety reports submitted by coworkers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted among physicians who practiced at the 193 hospitals in the Coworker Concern Observation Reporting System (CORS), administered by the Vanderbilt Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy. Data were collected from January 2018 to December 2022. Exposure: Submitted reports concerning communication, professional responsibility, medical care, and professional integrity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Physicians' total number and categories of CORS reports. The proportion of physicians in each specialty (nonsurgeon nonproceduralists, emergency medicine physicians, nonsurgeon proceduralists, and surgeons) who received at least 1 report and who qualified for intervention were calculated; logistic regression was used to calculate the odds of any CORS report. Results: The cohort included 35 120 physicians: 18 288 (52.1%) nonsurgeon nonproceduralists, 1876 (5.3%) emergency medicine physicians, 6743 (19.2%) nonsurgeon proceduralists, and 8213 (23.4%) surgeons. There were 3179 physicians (9.1%) with at least 1 CORS report. Nonsurgeon nonproceduralists had the lowest percentage of physicians with at least 1 report (1032 [5.6%]), followed by emergency medicine (204 [10.9%]), nonsurgeon proceduralists (809 [12.0%]), and surgeons (1134 [13.8%]). Nonsurgeon nonproceduralists were less likely to be named in a CORS report than other specialties (5.6% vs 12.8% for other specialties combined; difference in percentages, -7.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.7 to -6.5 percentage points; P < .001). Pediatric-focused nonsurgeon nonproceduralists (2897 physicians) were significantly less likely to be associated with a CORS report than nonpediatric nonsurgeon nonproceduralists (15 391 physicians) (105 [3.6%] vs 927 [6.0%]; difference in percentages, -2.4 percentage points, 95% CI, -3.2 to -1.6 percentage points; P < .001). Pediatric-focused emergency medicine physicians, nonsurgeon proceduralists, and surgeons had no significant differences in reporting compared with nonpediatric-focused physicians. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, less than 10% of physicians ever received a coworker report with a concern about unprofessional behavior. Monitoring reports of unprofessional behaviors provides important opportunities for health care organizations to identify and intervene as needed to support team members.

Progress in medicine and artificial intelligence.

This essay questions, with regard to medicine, the idea of progress as technological development by focusing on people rather than things. It analyzes how the predominance of such an idea of progress converts today's societies to techno-fetishism that degrades community life and medical practice, contributing to the medicalization of social life. It is argued that the realization of technological potentialities depends on their forms of use; that the main motive of technological development is unlimited profit and that priority developments are those that enhance the social control that maintains the status quo. The intelligence as an intelligence quotient is criticized by proposing it as an attribute of the human being as a whole, manifested in the ways of thinking and proceeding of people in their circumstances, where affectivity and critical thinking are essential for their development; it is emphasized that its antecedent is the harmonic concert of planetary life that contrasts with the prevailing human disharmony. It is proposed that artificial intelligence is the most recent creation of techno-fetishism that deposits vital attributes in technology and that its forms of use will accentuate the degradation of human and planetary life. Another idea of medical progress is proposed, based on forms of organization conducive to the development of inquisitive, critical and collaborative skills that promote permanent improvement, whose distant horizon is dignifying progress: spiritual, intellectual, moral and convivial sublimation of collectivities in harmony with the planetary ecosystem.

Este ensayo cuestiona, a propósito de la medicina, la idea de progreso como desarrollo tecnológico al centrarlo en las personas y no en las cosas. Se analiza cómo el predominio de tal idea de progreso convierte a las sociedades actuales al tecno-fetichismo que degrada la vida comunitaria y la práctica médica contribuyendo a la medicalización de la vida social. Se argumenta que la realización de las potencialidades tecnológicas depende de sus formas de uso, que el móvil principal del desarrollo tecnológico es el lucro sin límites, y que los desarrollos prioritarios son los que potencian el control social que mantiene el statu quo. Se critica la idea de inteligencia como cociente intelectual al proponerla como atributo del ser humano como un todo, manifiesto en las formas pensar y proceder de las personas en sus circunstancias, donde la afectividad y el pensamiento crítico son imprescindibles para su desarrollo. Se destaca que su antecedente es el concierto armónico de la vida planetaria contrastante con la disarmonía humana imperante. Se plantea que la inteligencia artificial es la más reciente hechura del tecno-fetichismo que deposita en la tecnología atributos vitales, y que sus formas de uso acentuarán la degradación de la vida humana y planetaria. Se propone otra idea de progreso médico basado en formas de organización propicias para el desarrollo de aptitudes inquisitivas, críticas y colaborativas que impulsen la superación permanente, cuyo horizonte lejano es el progreso dignificante: sublimación espiritual, intelectual, moral y convivencial de las colectividades en armonía con el ecosistema planetario.

Accountable care organization initiatives to improve the cost and outcomes of specialty care.

OBJECTIVES: To assess initiatives to manage the cost and outcomes of specialty care in organizations that participate in Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 2023 ACO survey data. METHODS: Analysis of responses to a 12-question web-based survey from 101 respondents representing 174 ACOs participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program or the Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health ACO model in 2023. RESULTS: Improving specialist alignment was a high priority for 62% of the 101 respondents and a medium priority for 34%. Only 11% reported that employed specialists were highly aligned and 7% reported that contracted specialists were highly aligned. A subset of ACOs reported major efforts to engage specialists in quality improvement projects (38%) and to convene specialists to develop evidence-based care pathways (30%). They also reported supporting primary care physicians through providing specialist directories (44%), specialist e-consults (23%), and sharing specialist cost data (20%). The most common challenges reported were the influence of fee-for-service payment on specialist behavior (58%), lack of data to evaluate specialist performance (53%), and insufficient bandwidth or ACO resources to address specialist alignment (49%). CONCLUSIONS: Engaging specialists in accountable care is an emerging area for ACOs but one with numerous challenges. Making better data on specialist costs and outcomes available to Medicare ACOs is essential for accelerating progress.

Variation in Oral Board Examination Accommodations Among Specialties.

Importance: Board certification can have broad implications for candidates' career trajectories, and prior research has found sociodemographic disparities in pass rates. Barriers in the format and administration of the oral board examinations may disproportionately affect certain candidates. Objective: To characterize oral certifying examination policies and practices of the 16 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited specialties that require oral examinations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted from March 1 to April 15, 2023, using data on oral examination practices and policies (examination format, dates, and setting; lactation accommodations; and accommodations for military deployment, family emergency, or medical leave) as well as the gender composition of the specialties' boards of directors obtained from websites, telephone calls and email correspondence with certifying specialists. The percentages of female residents and residents of racial and ethnic backgrounds who are historically underrepresented in medicine (URM) in each specialty as of December 31, 2021, were obtained from the Graduate Medical Education 2021 to 2022 report. Main Outcome and Measures: For each specialty, accommodation scores were measured by a modified objective scoring system (score range: 1-13, with higher scores indicating more accommodations). Poisson regression was used to assess the association between accommodation score and the diversity of residents in that specialty, as measured by the percentages of female and URM residents. Linear regression was used to assess whether gender diversity of a specialty's board of directors was associated with accommodation scores. Results: Included in the analysis were 16 specialties with a total of 46 027 residents (26 533 males [57.6%]) and 233 members of boards of directors (152 males [65.2%]). The mean (SD) total accommodation score was 8.28 (3.79), and the median (IQR) score was 9.25 (5.00-12.00). No association was found between test accommodation score and the percentage of female or URM residents. However, for each 1-point increase in the test accommodation score, the relative risk that a resident was female was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.96-1.16), and the relative risk that an individual was a URM resident was 1.04 (95% CI, 1.00-1.07). An association was found between the percentage of female board members and the accommodation score: for each 10% increase in the percentage of board members who were female, the accommodation score increased by 1.20 points (95% CI, 0.23-2.16 points; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found considerable variability in oral board examination accommodations among ACGME-accredited specialties, highlighting opportunities for improvement and standardization. Promoting diversity in leadership bodies may lead to greater accommodations for examinees in extenuating circumstances.

Specialties preference by gender among medical students at Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, South Africa.

BACKGROUND:  To determine the speciality preferences and the gender differences in the choice of speciality among medical students at Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, South Africa. METHODS:  This cross-sectional study was conducted among fourth- to sixth-year medical students. A structured self-administered questionnaire was used to collect the data. Data analysis was performed using STATA version 16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, United States). RESULTS:  A total of 174 students participated (response rate of 74%). Their median age was 23 years with interquartile range of 2 years. More than half (57%) were females. About 83% had no previous qualifications. Most (89%) have shown interest in pursuing specialist training. Surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology and internal medicine were the most selected specialities, while family medicine, ophthalmology, forensic medicine, public health medicine, ear, nose and throat, and accident and emergency medicine were the least preferred. Males were more likely interested in surgery and internal medicine, while females preferred obstetrics and gynaecology. CONCLUSION:  The majority of the medical students intends to pursue their postgraduate medical training. Even though the results were not statistically significant, there are gender differences in speciality preferences. There is a need to develop and implement career guidance and recruitment plans to deal with specialities with poor recruitment and gender imbalance.Contribution: To deal with specialties with poor and gender imbalance, career guidance and recruitment plans must be developed and implemented.

The effects of gender discrimination on medical students' choice of specialty for their (junior) residency - a survey among medical students in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Gender discrimination is known to affect societies in many different settings. Medical education is no exception. This study focusses on the consequences, gender discrimination can have on medical students and their choice of (junior) residency specialty. METHODS: An online questionnaire was developed and distributed among the 40 medical faculties in Germany. The study population contained medical students in their fifth and sixth academic year. RESULTS: The survey's participants consisted of 759 students from 31 universities. Female medical students experienced significantly more gender discrimination compared to their male colleagues (f = 487, 87.9% vs. m = 76, 45.8%, p < 0.0001). The specialties with the most reported gender discrimination were family medicine (f = 180, 42.9% vs. m = 15, 23.8%, p < 0.05), followed by surgery (f = 369, 87.4% vs. m = 44, 69.8%, p < 0.05), internal medicine (f = 282, 67.3% vs. m = 37, 58.7%, ns), orthopaedics/casualty surgery (f = 270, 65.1% vs. m = 32, 50.8%, p < 0.05), and gynaecology (women (f = 142, 34.1% vs. m = 34, 54.0%, p < 0.05). Gynaecology was the only specialty, men experienced more discrimination compared to women. Among the students that ever changed their specialty of choice (f = 346 (73.3%) m = 95 (72%)), significantly more women than men claimed gender discrimination to be one of the main three reasons for their specialty choice (f = 42, 12.1% vs. m = 1, 1.1%, p < 0.05). In addition, 53 students (f = 50 (10.6%) m = 3 (2.3%)) stated to rule out a specialty from the beginning due to gender discrimination. CONCLUSION: Gender discrimination is frequently experienced by medical students in Germany. It influences their choice of medical specialty directly. Our data suggest a fundamental problem that proposes and implicates certain specialties to be attractive for only one gender.

Patient characteristics of, and remedial interventions for, complaints and medico-legal claims against doctors: a rapid review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain if patient's characteristics are associated with complaints and claims against doctors. Additionally, evidence for the effectiveness of remedial interventions on rates of complaints and claims against doctors has not been synthesised. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review of recent literature to answer: Question 1 "What are the common characteristics and circumstances of patients who are most likely to complain or bring a claim about the care they have received from a doctor?" and Question 2 "What initiatives or interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing complaints and claims about the care patients have received from a doctor?". We used a systematic search (most recently in July 2023) of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature. Studies were screened against inclusion criteria and critically appraised in duplicate using standard tools. Results were summarised using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: From 8079 search results, we reviewed the full text of 250 studies. We included 25 studies: seven for Question 1 (6 comparative studies with controls and one systematic review) and 18 studies for Question 2 (14 uncontrolled pre-post studies, 2 comparative studies with controls and 2 systematic reviews). Most studies were set in hospitals across a mix of medical specialties. Other than for patients with mental health conditions (two studies), no other patient characteristics demonstrated either a strong or consistent effect on the rate of complaints or claims against their treating doctors. Risk management programs (6 studies), and communication and resolution programs (5 studies) were the most studied of 6 intervention types. Evidence for reducing complaints and medico-legal claims, costs or premiums and more timely management was apparent for both types of programs. Only 1 to 3 studies were included for peer programs, medical remediation, shared decision-making, simulation training and continuing professional development, with few generalisable results. CONCLUSION: Few patient characteristics can be reliably related to the likelihood of medico-legal complaints or claims. There is some evidence that interventions can reduce the number and costs of claims, the number of complaints, and the timeliness of claims. However, across both questions, the strength of the evidence is very weak and is based on only a few studies or study designs that are highly prone to bias.

Gender and Clinical Status in Burnout in Medicine.

This survey study assesses feelings of satisfaction, stress, and burnout by gender and clinical status among health care workers at a single academic center.