Integrating Planetary Health in Health Guidelines (GRADE Guidance 46)

Human health and natural systems are intrinsically linked—stable natural systems enable healthy human life. Health systems aim to promote, restore, and maintain health. Health systems may promote human health while having detrimental effects on natural systems, contributing to the transgression of planetary boundaries, such as biosphere integrity, climate change, and the introduction of new entities like microplastics. To date, the health guideline field lacks methods to assess the impacts of health interventions on planetary boundaries. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group established the Planetary Health Project Group in 2023 to develop formal GRADE guidance for integrating planetary health into guideline recommendations to address this gap. Guided by the concepts of planetary health and planetary boundaries and following established methods for GRADE guidance development, the project group conducted iterative case study analyses, expert workshops, and a 2-round global Delphi consensus process. Four case studies were selected for application of this guidance before recommendations were finalized. The GRADE Working Group approved the official guidance. The Planetary Health Project Group presents 7 domains of guidance for incorporating planetary health aspects into the guideline development process, including highly desirable items and optional items. Highly desirable items include formally addressing planetary health in public health and health system guidelines and explicitly justifying its exclusion where it is not addressed. Judgments within the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework should systematically integrate included evidence across the prioritized planetary boundaries and equity. This guidance aims to support guideline developers and policymakers in making evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations to protect individual and planetary health, while maintaining thoroughness and feasibility for guideline developers within the GRADE approach.

Iron Deficiency Anemia

Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is caused by iron deficiency, a common yet underrecognized clinical entity. Populations at greatest risk include children, menstruating and pregnant persons, and people of low socioeconomic status. Timely diagnosis and management of iron deficiency are key to preventing IDA and require thorough assessment of the underlying cause and appropriate iron repletion through either oral or parenteral therapy. Blood transfusion does not provide adequate elemental iron but is sometimes indicated along with iron therapy in patients with cardiovascular compromise, active bleeding, or severe anemia where more rapid correction is warranted. Alternative causes of anemia can be differentiated by red blood cell morphology and reticulocyte count and should be considered if anemia persists despite adequate repletion of iron stores.

Telemedicine Policy and Practice: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, federal policymakers temporarily lifted long-standing restrictions on telemedicine, resulting in an unprecedented and rapid expansion of virtual care across video, audio, and asynchronous modalities. When integrated into longitudinal care relationships, telemedicine can increase access, reduce patient burden, and support continuity for people facing geographic, mobility, or socioeconomic barriers. However, telemedicine also introduces new clinical, regulatory, equity, and safety challenges that require deliberate policy design. Beyond its clinical considerations, telehealth offers environmental and logistical benefits, including reduced travel time and cost, decreased fuel consumption, lower transportation expenses, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians updates its previous policy paper on telemedicine to reflect changes in payment policy, licensure, prescribing authority, and utilization patterns that have occurred over the past decade and accelerated during the COVID-19 public health emergency. This paper focuses on access, payment policy, licensure, prescribing practices, equity, and patient safety across federal and state programs and private payers and emphasizes the conditions under which telemedicine should be integrated into clinical practice. Key developments addressed include the expansion and partial lapse of Medicare telemedicine waivers, evolving U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration rules governing prescribing, increased reliance on interstate practice, and normalization of telemedicine by private payers.

Physicians Are Not Providers: The Ethical Significance of Names in Health Care: A Policy Paper From the American College of Physicians

More than 25 years ago, Pellegrino and Relman noted the increasing commercialization of the learned professions, anticipating what many physicians are increasingly experiencing today: an impairment of their ability to practice in accordance with standards of medical ethics and professionalism. These hurdles to the physician’s ability to do right by the patient contribute to what leaders in medicine and the American College of Physicians have called deprofessionalization. An example is the use of the term provider to describe physicians and other health professionals. The use of this terminology has been reviewed in medical journal articles but has not been adequately explored as a matter of ethics and professionalism. Through that lens, this paper examines the trends, significance, and implications for patients, physicians, and health care of the use of the term provider.

When Decision Thresholds May Not Improve Decision Making

Regulatory Framework for Private Equity and Corporatization in Health Care: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

The growing involvement of private equity in the health care sector raises important questions about its effect on cost, quality, access, and the physician workforce. Private equity investment in health care is associated with increased costs and, in some settings, adverse effects on care delivery and outcomes. Rising costs, administrative burdens, workforce shortages, and declining reimbursement have made independent practice increasingly difficult, contributing to physician transitions to corporate ownership models. Physicians employed by private equity–owned health care organizations may also experience challenges due to the evolving dynamics of their work environment. State and federal regulators, as well as lawmakers, should consider implementing policy interventions to address these challenges. Although corporate investment may improve efficiency and, in limited instances, care delivery, private equity in this sector raises important questions about its role and effects. This American College of Physicians (ACP) position paper builds on the previous ACP position paper on financial profit in medicine, which explored the growing influence of corporate interests and private equity investment in the health care industry. This paper examines the effect of private equity investment on clinical autonomy, health care costs, quality, access, equity, and innovation. It emphasizes the need for more vigorous enforcement of regulatory measures and policy solutions to preserve the quality of patient care and protect the physician workforce. It also offers recommendations to strengthen oversight, transparency, and accountability related to private equity’s effects on clinical autonomy, care delivery, and organizational decision making. Finally, it discusses the potential opportunities and challenges associated with private equity investment in health care, including increased consolidation and corporatization.

The Doctors Made the Difference

Letter From the American College of Physicians to the U.S. Presidential Transition Team

Predatory Journals: What Can We Do to Protect Their Prey?

GRADE Guidance: Using Thresholds for Judgments on Health Benefits and Harms in Decision Making (GRADE Guidance 42)

Users of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) make judgments about the size of intervention effects on desirable and undesirable people-important health outcomes or on benefits and harms. Benchmarking effect sizes by using decision thresholds (DTs) can help to facilitate these judgments and the process. This article provides GRADE guidance for use of DTs for judgments about the magnitude of desirable and undesirable health effects, such as in a health guideline or health technology assessment. Through iterative discussions and refinement in in-person and online meetings of a GRADE project group and through e-mail communication, the authors developed guidance for using DTs in Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. The authors applied the approach and used these examples from guidelines and the results of a randomized methodological study to develop official GRADE guidance. Several alternatives for determining and using DTs are presented. In the first main approach, outcome-specific DTs for trivial, small, moderate, and large effects are determined through a calculation using empirically derived generic coefficients and the outcome’s utility value and are compared with the effect estimate obtained from an evidence synthesis. In the second main approach, outcome-specific DTs are also determined, but through direct surveying of decision makers to explicitly assign thresholds for the prioritized health outcomes. The article also describes how these approaches can be combined. The suggested approaches provide transparency for judgments in EtD frameworks that are based on findings from evidence syntheses.