Category: Health

Feeling Thirsty? Wall Street, Industry Giants Stir Renewed Interest in the CBD-Beverage Market

For several years, industry giants such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Anheuser-Busch have made waves announcing future plans to explore the CBD-beverage market. And last week, Nasdaq published an article on the future of investment opportunities in cannabis-infused drinks. Perhaps most notable from the article was Nasdaq’s expected valuation for the CBD beverage market — a staggering $1.4 billion by 2023.

While it is true that certain investors are seeing green in the CBD-beverage market, the space is still plagued by a landmine of legal uncertainty and questions. Hemp-derived CBD was legalized at the federal level by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, also known as the Farm Bill. However, as we previously discussed, the FDA and FTC have overlapping enforcement authority over the marketing of CBD products, which can include anything from food products to dietary supplements to beverages with CBD added. And as recently as November 16, 2021, the FDA reiterated that its approach to regulating the CBD industry will be same as it has been  — a regulatory minefield. The acting Deputy Center Director for Regulatory Policy at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research recently emphasized the agency’s position that it needs additional CBD research and safety data before it will consider CBD for uses beyond prescription drugs, including usage as a food or beverage additive or dietary supplement.

Companies marketing CBD beverages should take careful steps to ensure compliance with the FDA’s labeling requirements and guidance regarding CBD products. Unless and until the FDA provides further guidance, we can expect the back-and-forth game to continue with CBD companies entering the beverage space and the FDA initiating periodic enforcement actions. At a minimum, CBD companies entering the beverage space should refrain from making health claims, such as a product “can prevent, treat, or cure” a disease, as these claims are ripe for FDA enforcement actions. We provided several marketing dos and don’ts in a previous blog post that apply with equal force to the CBD beverage industry.

With industry experts claiming that the “best way to consume cannabinoids is through a beverage,” and Nasdaq reporting on the investment opportunities that surround CBD beverages, it is no surprise that CBD beverages are exploding in popularity.

This article was written by Rachel Sodee and Richard Swor of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings law firm. For more articles about CBD products, please click here.

Mississippi Enacts Medical Marijuana Law

Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed legislation legalizing medical cannabis on February 2, 2022. Known as the “Mississippi Medical Cannabis Act”, the law permits the use of medical cannabis to treat certain debilitating medical conditions including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, muscular dystrophy, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, ALS, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, sickle-cell anemia, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, post-traumatic stress disorder, autism,  cachexia or wasting syndrome, chronic pain, severe or intractable nausea, seizures, severe and persistent muscle spasms, among others.  The law was effective immediately upon signing by the Governor, although medical cannabis will not become available for months.

Medical cannabis products will include cannabis flower, cannabis extracts, edible cannabis products, beverages, topical products, ointments, oils, tinctures and suppositories.

The medical cannabis law contains many favorable provisions for employers.  Specifically:

  1. Employers are not required to permit or accommodate the medical use of medical cannabis, or to modify any job or working conditions or any employee who engages in the medical use of cannabis, or seeks to engage in the medical use of cannabis;
  2. Employers are not prohibited from refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, or otherwise taking adverse employment action against an individual with respect to hiring, discharging, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment as a result, in whole or in part, of that individual’s medical use of medical cannabis, regardless of the individual’s impairment or lack of impairment resulting from the medical use of medical cannabis;
  3. Employers are not prohibited from establishing or enforcing a drug testing policy;
  4. Employers may discipline employees who use medical cannabis in the workplace or who work while under the influence of medical cannabis.
  5. The law does not interfere with, impair or impede any federal requirements or regulations such as the U.S. Department of Transportation’s drug and alcohol testing regulations;
  6. The law does not permit, authorize or establish an individual’s right to commence or undertake any legal action against an employer for refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against an individual with respect to hiring, discharging, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges or employment due to the individual’s medical use of medical cannabis;
  7. Employers and their workers’ compensation carriers are not required to pay for or to reimburse an individual for the costs associated with the medical use of cannabis;
  8. The law does not affect, alter or otherwise impact the workers’ compensation premium discount available to employers who establish a drug-free workplace program in accordance with Miss. Code Section 71-3-201 et seq.;
  9. The law does not affect, alter or otherwise impact an employer’s right to deny or establish legal defenses to the payment of workers’ compensation benefits to an employee on the basis of a positive drug test or refusal to submit to or cooperate with a drug test, as provided under Miss. Code Sections 71-3-7 and 71-3-121;
  10. The law does not authorize an individual to act with negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, in breach of any applicable professional or occupational standard of care, or to effect an intentional wrong, as a result, in whole or in part, of that individual’s medical use of medical cannabis;
  11. The law prohibits smoking and vaping medical cannabis in a public place or in a motor vehicle;
  12. The law prohibits operating, navigating, or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, train, motor boat or other conveyance in a manner that would violate state or federal law as a result, in whole or in part, of that individual’s medical use of medical cannabis; and,
  13. The law does not create a private right of action by an employee against an employer.

Mississippi employers should review the law to determine whether any revisions to drug and alcohol testing policies or other workplace policies will be necessary.

Article By Kathryn J. Russo of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Oregon Health Authority Adopts COVID-19 Vaccination and Masking Rules in Healthcare and K-12 Education

On January 31, 2022, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) published permanent rules relating to COVID-19 vaccination and masking requirements in healthcare settings, just a few days after issuing similar rules for K-12 schools. The permanent rules replaced temporary rules that expire after 180 days.

The permanent rules for both healthcare and K-12 settings will “remain in effect unless the State Public Health Director or State Public Health Officer issues an order stating that the requirements . . . are no longer necessary to control COVID-19.” Under both rules, the factors that may lead to a loosening of restrictions or rescission of the permanent rules include the following:

  • “The degree of COVID-19 transmission”

  • “COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths”

  • “Disparate COVID-19 related health impacts on communities of color and tribal communities”

  • “Guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”

  • “Proportion of the population partially or fully vaccinated”

The statewide temporary indoor mask mandate is set to expire on February 8, 2022. OHA is still reviewing public comments on a proposed permanent indoor mask mandate and expects to publish a permanent rule in the coming weeks. Healthcare and K-12 employers may want to revisit their COVID-19 policies and workplace practices to consider whether they are complying

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For similar articles on public health, visit the NLR Health Care Law section.

New Tools in the Fight Against Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals

The explosive growth of internet pharmacies and direct-to-consumer shipment of pharmaceuticals has provided increased access to, and reduced the cost of, important medications. Unfortunately, these same forces have increased the risks that counterfeit medicines will make their way to consumers, endangering patient safety and affecting manufacturers’ reputation in the public eye.

While the Food and Drug Administration attempts to police such misconduct through enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), the resources devoted to enforcement are simply no match for the size and scope of the counterfeiting threat. Fortunately, pharmaceutical manufacturers are not without recourse, as several well-established tools may be used in the right circumstances to stop counterfeiters from profiting from the sale of knock-offs.

Experienced litigators can use the Lanham Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to stop unscrupulous individuals and organizations from deceiving customers with counterfeit versions of trademarked drugs. Until recently, these legal weapons – including search warrants, seizures, forfeitures, and significant penalties – were typically wielded only by the government and only in criminal prosecutions.

As one recent case demonstrates, however, many of the tools that law enforcement has used for years to combat counterfeiters are also available to pharmaceutical manufacturers. In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Safe Chain Solutions, LLC, et al., the manufacturer of several trademarked HIV medications filed a civil complaint, under seal, alleging violations of the Lanham Act and RICO against scores of individuals and companies that were allegedly selling counterfeit versions of these drugs to patients across the country.

By deploying private investigators and techniques typically used by law enforcement, Gilead was able to gather a substantial amount of evidence before even filing the case. The company then used this evidence to secure ex parte seizure warrants and asset freezes, allowing it to locate and seize thousands of counterfeit pills and packaging before they could be shipped to unsuspecting consumers. Through the seizure of the financial proceeds of the alleged counterfeiting, Gilead prevented the dissipation of assets. If the company can successfully prove its RICO case, it stands to recover treble damages and attorneys’ fees as well.

Manufacturers of trademarked pharmaceuticals may consider using these and other tools to tackle the threat posed by counterfeiters. By drawing upon the experience and skills of trained litigators – particularly counsel who previously deployed these tools on behalf of the government while serving as federal prosecutors – companies can proactively protect their intellectual property and the consumers who depend on their products.

Article By Eric J. Beste, Anthony J. Burba and Heather F. Delgado of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Phantom Participants with Real-World Ramifications: Clinical Drug Trial Data Falsification

As if medical-related disinformation was not pernicious enough, unscrupulous actors seek to enrich themselves from falsifying clinical drug trial data. A Florida-based clinical research firm project manager was sentenced to 30 months in prison because of his involvement in a conspiracy to falsify clinical drug trial data. Previously, the primary investigator, clinic owner, and another senior employee at Miami-based Tellus Clinical Research were charged with various counts of mail and wire fraud, money laundering, as well as making false statements to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspectors. A researcher or other employee of the medical clinic could have reported this conspiracy to the government and shared in 15-25% of the government’s recovery.

Pharmaceutical companies sponsor clinical research trials to gather data on the safety and efficacy of the drugs they manufacture. Prior to commencing research trials, pharmaceutical companies or “sponsors” must submit to the FDA their “study protocol,” which identifies who can participate, drug dosages and timing, and how the study’s performance will be measured. Sponsors engage contract research organizations (CROs) to perform the clinical trials, and the CRO must ensure compliance with the study protocol and FDA regulations. In this case, a clinical research firm contracted with pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct trials related to an opioid dependency treatment, an irritable bowel syndrome drug, and diabetic nephropathy or kidney disease medication. The sponsors would reimburse the CRO a set amount per study participant and for some fees and Tellus would pay participants in accordance with the study protocol.

How the research firm gamed the system involved the eligibility requirements for the studies: each of these clinical trials required patients to meet certain requirements for participation. Instead of honestly recruiting patients with the diagnoses needed to participate in the program, the defendants enrolled people without applicable diagnoses and falsely claimed that study participants completed all the requirements in the study protocol, to garner more payments from the clinical trial sponsors. Several of the defendants enrolled friends and family members to bump up the research firm’s participation numbers, and other research firm employees went so far as to misappropriate personal information from third parties without their knowledge or consent. The co-conspirators also falsified clinical notes and medical records of these unwitting participants, claiming to have performed medical exams, drawn blood for testing, and made payments to participants. This elaborate conspiracy served to wrongfully enrich the research firm owner and senior management at the expense of pharmaceutical companies and ultimately patients.

Clinical research fraud is harmful to consumers. As the Assistant Commissioner for the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) stated, “Compromised clinical trial data could impact the agency’s decisions about the safety and effectiveness of the drug under review.” Consumers could end up with unsafe medications due to fraudsters’ schemes.

A whistleblower could have reported this fraud to the FDA and ensured only drugs which perform well in clinical trials on real human beings make it to market. The Department of Justice needs whistleblowers to report fraud involving clinical drug trials.

© 2022 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP
For more content about the FDA and drug trials, visit the NLR Biotech, Food & Drug section.

Sixth Circuit Clarifies When Statute of Limitations Commences in False Claims Act Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

On January 10, 2022, the Sixth Circuit held in El-Khalil v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 2022 WL 92565 (6th Cir. Jan 10, 2022) that the statute of limitations period for a False Claims Act whistleblower retaliation case commences when the whistleblower is first informed of the retaliatory adverse employment action.

El-Khalil’s False Claims Act Whistleblower Retaliation Claim

While working as a podiatrist at Oakwood Healthcare, El-Khalil saw  employees submit fraudulent Medicare claims, which he reported to the federal government. In 2015, Oakwood’s Medical Executive Committee (MEC) rejected El-Khalil’s application to renew his staff privileges.  After commencing a series of administrative appeals, El-Khalil found himself before Oakwood’s Joint Conference Committee (JCC) on September 22, 2016. The JCC, which had the authority to issue a final, non-appealable decision, voted to affirm the denial of El-Khalil’s staff privileges.  On September 27, 2016, the JCC sent El-Khalil written notice of its decision.

Three years later, on September 27, 2019, El-Khalil sued Oakwood for retaliation under the False Claims Act whistleblower retaliation law.  Oakwood moved for summary dismissal on the basis that the claim was not timely filed in that the JCC’s decision became final when it voted on September 22, 2016 and therefore the filing on September 27, 2019 was outside of the 3-year statute of limitations. The district court granted Oakwood’s motion and El-Khalil appealed.

Sixth Circuit Denies Relief

In affirming the district court, the Sixth Circuit held that the text of the FCA anti-retaliation provision (providing that an action “may not be brought more than 3 years after the date when the retaliation occurred”) is unequivocal that the limitations period commences when the retaliation actually happened. It adopts “the standard rule” that the limitations period begins when the plaintiff “can file suit and obtain relief,” not when the plaintiff discovers the retaliation. The retaliation occurred on September 22 when the JCC voted to affirm the denial of El-Khalil’s staff privileges, and the JCC’s September 27 letter merely memorialized an already final decision.

In addition, the Sixth Circuit held that the False Claims Act’s whistleblower protection provision does not contain a notice provision. As soon as Oakwood “discriminated against” El-Khalil “because of” his FCA-protected conduct, he had a ripe “cause of action triggering the limitations period.” The court noted that if an FCA retaliation plaintiff could show that the employer concealed from the whistleblower the decision to take an adverse action, the whistleblower might be able to avail themself of equitable tolling to halt the ticking of the limitations clock.

Implications for Whistleblowers

Some whistleblower retaliation claims have a short statute of limitations and therefore it is critical to promptly determine when the statute of limitations starts to run.  For most whistleblower retaliation claims that are adjudicated at the U.S. Department of Labor, the clock for filing a complaint begins to tick when the complainant receives unequivocal notice of the adverse action.  Udofot v. NASA/Goddard Space Center, ARB No. 10-027, ALJ No. 2009-CAA-7 (ARB Dec. 20, 2011).  If a notice of termination is ambiguous, the statute of limitations may start to run upon the effective date of the termination as opposed to the notice date.  Certain circumstances may justify equitable modification, such as where:

  1. the employer actively misleads or conceals information such that the employee is prevented from making out a prima facie case;
  2. some extraordinary event prevents the employee from filing on time;
  3. the employee timely files the complaint, but with the wrong agency or forum; or
  4. the employer’s own acts or omissions induce the employee to reasonably forego filing within the limitations period.

See Turin v. AmTrust Financial Svcs., Inc., ARB No. 11-062, ALJ No. 2010-SOX-018 (ARB March 29, 2013).

When assessing the statute of limitations for whistleblower retaliation claims, it is also critical to calculate the deadline to timely file a claim for each discrete adverse action or each act of retaliation.  However, in an action alleging a hostile work environment, retaliatory acts outside the statute of limitations period are actionable where there is an ongoing hostile work environment and at least one of the acts occurred within the statute of limitations period.  And when filing a retaliation claim, the whistleblower should consider pleading untimely acts of retaliation because such facts are relevant background evidence in support of a timely claim.

Article By Jason Zuckerman of Zuckerman Law

For more whistleblower and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Zuckerman Law

U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Preliminary Injunctions on Healthcare Worker Vaccine Mandate

On January 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Interim Final Rule (the “Rule”) in a 5-4 decision, staying the preliminary injunctions issued for 24 states by the District Courts for the Eastern District of Missouri and the Western District of Louisiana.  Therefore, the CMS vaccine mandate is in full effect for all states except Texas, which was not part of the cases before the Court.  The Rule requires nearly all workers at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified facilities—whether medical personnel, volunteers, janitorial staff, or even contractors who service the facilities—to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption.

The Court based its holding on two main points.  First, the Court held that Congress clearly authorized CMS to put conditions on funding it provides to the Medicare and Medicaid certified facilities.  The Court opined that perhaps CMS’s “most basic” function is to ensure that regulated facilities protect the health and safety of their patients, noting that Medicare and Medicaid patients are often some of the most vulnerable to infection and death from COVID-19.  Because CMS determined that a vaccine mandate is necessary to protect patient health and safety, the Court held the mandate “fits neatly within the language of the [authorizing] statute.”  The Court acknowledged that CMS has never required vaccinations in the past, but attributed this in part to the fact that states typically already require necessary vaccinations like hepatitis B, influenza, and measles for healthcare workers.

Second, the Court held that the mandate is not arbitrary and capricious, and cautioned the district courts that their role is merely to make sure an agency acts within the “zone of reasonableness.”  The Court found the administrative record sufficient to explain CMS’s rationale for the mandate and also accepted that getting the vaccine mandate in place ahead of winter and flu season satisfied the “good cause” standard for skipping the notice and comment period.

Healthcare employers subject to the Rule should immediately start implementing vaccine requirements if they have not already.  It is anticipated that in all states but Texas, CMS will likely begin enforcement of the vaccine mandate in approximately 30 days.  On December 28, 2021, CMS released guidance to state surveyors with enforcement standards to use starting 30 days from the memo, though at the time the memo only applied to the 25 states that were not enjoined.  Healthcare employers should also keep in mind that this is not the end of the road: the Court’s holding only means that the CMS vaccine mandate is in force while the 5th and 8th Circuits complete their review of the underlying state challenges to the mandate.  While the Supreme Court’s opinion sends a strong message that lower courts should uphold the mandate, there is no guarantee they will do so.

The legal landscape continues to evolve quickly and there is a lack of clear-cut authority or bright line rules on implementation.  This article is not intended to be an unequivocal, one-size-fits-all guidance, but instead represents our interpretation of where applicable law currently and generally stands.  This article does not address the potential impacts of the numerous other local, state and federal orders that have been issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including, without limitation, potential liability should an employee become ill, requirements regarding family leave, sick pay and other issues.

Article By Keeley A. McCarty and Ashley T. Hirano of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

COVID-19 Update: The CDC Issues New Isolation Guidance

On December 27, 2021, the CDC shortened its recommended isolation and quarantine periods for those infected with, or exposed to, COVID-19. Because the CDC’s Isolation Guidance is incorporated by reference into OSHA’s vaccination or test rule, larger employers should revise their policies to reflect these new guidelines in advance of the January 10th deadline for compliance. Here is a summary of the new isolation/quarantine periods:

Employees Who Have Tested Positive and are Asymptomatic

  • Isolate at home for five days.
  • Mask for five days after isolation period.

Employees Who Have Tested Positive and Have Symptoms

  • Isolate at home for five days and, if symptoms resolve during that time, the employee can leave isolation.
  • If the employee has a fever, the employee must remain isolated until the fever resolves.
  • Mask for five days after isolation period.

Employees Who Are Exposed to COVID-19 and Have Received Booster

  • No required isolation or quarantine.
  • Wear mask for 10 days.
  • Best practice: Test, if possible, five days after exposure.

Employees Who Are Exposed to COVID-19 and Completed Vaccination (Pfizer or Moderna) Within the Last Six Months or Received J&J Vaccine Within the Last Two Months 

  • No required isolation or quarantine.
  • Wear mask for 10 days.
  • Best practice: Test, if possible, five days after exposure.

Employees Who Are Exposed To COVID-19 and Are Unvaccinated or Completed Vaccination (Pfizer or Moderna) More Than Six Months Ago or Received J&J Vaccine More Than Two Months Ago

  • Stay home for five days.
  • Mask for five days after quarantine
  • If employee cannot quarantine, mask for 10 days
  • Best practice: Test, if possible, five days after exposure.
©2021 Roetzel & Andress

Article By Morris L. Hawk of Roetzel & Andress LPA

For more articles on COVID-19, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccine, Testing Mandates Back On – Effective Jan. 10, 2022

On December 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lifted the stay of OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that had been imposed by the Fifth Circuit, putting the ETS’ employer vaccination and testing requirements for COVID-19 back into effect. Following the decision, OSHA announced a Jan. 10, 2022, effective date, but added it will not cite employers for noncompliance with the testing requirements prior to Feb. 9, 2022.

Accordingly, employers can consider these dates as the new compliance deadlines: Jan. 10 for all ETS requirements except testing and Feb. 9 for testing requirements. Notably, OSHA will require employers to demonstrate good faith efforts to come into compliance. So employers covered by the ETS should begin taking steps to demonstrate compliance and documenting all such efforts.

Right now, employers should conduct vaccination inquiries, create a roster of employee vaccination status, and decide whether to require vaccinations for all employees or allow weekly testing as an alternative.

Employers should also consider reviewing options from payroll providers or HRIS software for the confidential storage and retrieval of vaccination and test information. Unionized employers need to consider their bargaining obligations over the discretionary aspects of the ETS, as well as over the effects of its nondiscretionary requirements.

This court decision adds another twist in the winding litigation challenging President Biden’s federal vaccine mandates. Following the Dec. 17 decision, the parties challenging the ETS immediately filed emergency applications with the U.S. Supreme Court to reimpose the stay. Justice Brett Kavanaugh will review and make a decision on the applications, as he is the justice assigned to hear such petitions arising from the Sixth Circuit. Justice Kavanaugh will have the option to grant the applications and stay the ETS pending review by the full Supreme Court, refer them to the full court for a decision, or take no action pending review.

It is possible the Supreme Court will weigh in on the emergency applications quickly, so employers can expect updates in the coming days and weeks.

© 2021 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more about OSHA Mandates, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Study Demonstrates Earlier Physician Retirement Overall and Increased Pay Equity Concerns for Female Doctors During the Pandemic

This month, Doximity issued its Fifth Annual 2021 Physician Compensation Report. With the continued strain of the pandemic spanning 2021, the self-reported physician data reflected widespread burnout and early retirement, especially by female physicians. With respect to physician compensation, Doximity findings demonstrated:

  • While average doctor pay increased 3.8 percent between 2020 and 2021, there was a decline of real income compared to 2020 given the CPI 6.2% rate of inflation in 2021.
  • The top five metro areas with the highest physician pay were Charlotte, NC; St. Louis, MO; Buffalo, NY; Jacksonville, Florida; and, Orlando, Florida.
  • The top five metro areas with the lowest physician pay were Baltimore, MD; Providence, RI; San Antonio, TX; Washington, D.C.; and Boston, MA.
  • A widening gender pay gap of 28.2% this year, with female physicians making $122,000 less than male physicians in 2021.
  • Based on 2014-2019 data, Doximity estimates that over the course of a career, female physicians will earn over $2 million less than male physicians.

Specialties with the largest pay equity gaps between men and women are oral & maxillofacial surgery; allergy and immunology; ENT; pediatric nephrology; and thoracic surgery. Significantly, there is no one medical specialty where women earned the same or more than men in 2021. All specialties had a pay gap over 10%, except Pediatric Rheumatology (which had a gap of 7.9%). To compound matters, a recent Jama Network Open research letter found that physician residents who were mothers – compared to physician residents who were fathers – were more likely to be responsible for childcare or schooling (24.6% v. .8%), household tasks (31.4% v. 7.2%), to work primarily from home (40.9% to 22%), and to reduce their work hours (19.4% to 9.4%). The study reflected the significant concern that these “short-term adjustments can have serious long-term repercussions as they may lead to lower earnings and negatively impact advancement.”

Doximity’s research also revealed that due to the pandemic, over 1% of physicians retired before expected, which is feared to strain an already tight labor market. The report also highlighted studies suggesting about half of doctors are considering an employment change due to the “COVID-related overwork.” The overwork also had a disproportionate impact on women physicians, with 25% of them reporting they are “considering early retirement” due to increased work during the pandemic.

This research reflects the importance of a physician/employer in any setting reflecting on the impact of the pandemic on its healthcare team. Moreover, the research shows continued pay equity deficits between female and male physicians, which may be exacerbated by the pandemic. Internal reflection on current pay practices to identify the factors contributing to it are critical to maintain top talent, improve morale amidst very difficult times and avoid wage and hour litigation.

Article By Dorothy Parson McDermott of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more healthcare and health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021