Search

Background In response to COVID-19, the AAMC recommended that hospitals conduct interviews in a virtual setting.Objective To evaluate whether fellowship video conference interviews (VCIs) are an acceptable alternative to in-person interviews from both the applicant and program perspectives.Methods Applicants and faculty from a single academic institution with five OBGYN subspecialty fellowship programs were invited to complete surveys regarding their experience using VCIs during the 2020 interview season. Survey responses used a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Comparative analyses between faculty and applicants responses to survey questions were performed with two-tailed Student’s t-tests.Results 45 faculty members and 131 applicants received the survey. Response rate for faculty members and applicants was 95.6% (n = 43) and 46.6% (n = 61), respectively. Faculty and applicants agreed that the VCIs allowed them to accurately represent themselves (83.7% vs. 88.6%, p = 0.48). Most applicants (62.3%, n = 38) reported a fundamental understanding of the fellowship’s culture. The majority of applicants (77.1%, n = 47) and faculty (72.1%, n = 31) agreed that they were able to develop connections during the virtual interview (p = 0.77). Faculty and applicants stated that VCIs assisted them in determining whether the candidate or program, respectively, was a good fit (83.7% vs. 67.2%, p = 0.98).Conclusions The VCI fellowship recruitment process allowed OBGYN fellowship applicants and programs to accurately represent themselves compared to in-person interviews. Most applicants and faculty were able to develop relationships over the virtual platform. Although not explicitly assessed, it is possible that the virtual interviews can achieve a suitable match between applicant and program across all OBGYN subspecialty fellowships. The VCI process may be a long-term resolution to minimize both the financial burden and time commitment presented by traditional in-person interviews. Follow-up studies should assess the performance of the virtually selected fellows compared to those selected in previous years using traditional in-person interviews.

Background: Some orphan drugs can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars annually per patient. As a result, payer sensitivity to the cost of orphan drugs is rising, particularly in light of increased numbers of new launches in recent years. In this article, we examine payer coverage in the United States, England and Wales, and the Netherlands of outpatient orphan drugs approved between 1983 and 2012, as well as the 11 most expensive orphan drugs. Methods: We collected data from drug regulatory agencies as well as payers and drug evaluation authorities. Results: We found that orphan drugs have more coverage restrictions than non-orphan drugs in all three jurisdictions. From an economic perspective, the fact that a drug is an orphan product or has a high per-unit price per se should not imply a special kind of evaluation by payers, or necessarily the imposition of more coverage restrictions. Conclusion: Payers should consider the same set of decision criteria that they do with respect to non-orphan drugs: disease severity, availability of treatment alternatives, level of unmet medical need, and cost-effectiveness, criteria that justifiably may be taken into account and traded off against one another in prescribing and reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs.