ACS Surgery News

Many civilians have expressed interest in taking a bleeding control training course that would empower them to immediately assist victims of active shooter and other intentional mass casualty events at the point of wounding, according to the results of a national poll published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS). Furthermore, most civilians support training and equipping police officers to perform severe bleeding control on victims as soon as possible, rather than wait for emergency medical services (EMS) personnel to arrive on the scene. Survey respondents also supported the placement of bleeding control kits in public places where large crowds gather, similar to the way that automatic external defibrillators are now found in airports and shopping malls.

Working to save lives

The Joint Committee to Create a National Policy to Enhance Survivability from Intentional Mass Casualty and Active Shooter Events, convened by the American College of Surgeons, recommends careful consideration of these study results. The committee’s deliberations are known as the Hartford Consensus™. The Hartford Consensus reports have been published in the Bulletin and JACS since the group’s formation in 2013 and promote the group’s core principle that “no one should die from uncontrolled bleeding.”

To that end, the Hartford Consensus calls for providing law enforcement officers with the training and equipment needed to act before EMS personnel arrive, providing EMS professionals with quicker access to the wounded, and training civilian bystanders to act as immediate responders. This element from the Hartford Consensus is at the heart of the “Stop the Bleed” campaign launched by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the National Security Council.

“We know that to save life and limb, you need to stop the bleeding very early—within five to 10 minutes—or victims can lose their lives,” said ACS Regent Lenworth M. Jacobs, Jr., MD, MPH, FACS, Chair of the Hartford Consensus and director of the Trauma Institute at Hartford Hospital, CT. “However, until now, there has been no clear indication of how well trained the general public is in bleeding control and how willing they might be to participate as immediate responders until professionals arrive on the scene.”

Public ready and willing to act

Langer Research Associates, New York, NY, conducted a national telephone survey of the general public, November 6−11, 2015, concluding just two days before the terrorist attacks in Paris. A total of 1,051 telephone interviews were conducted—528 via cellphone and 523 via landline. Respondents were asked whether they had ever participated in first aid training, and, if so, when and whether it included bleeding control instruction. Nearly half of all respondents (47 percent) said that they had received first aid training at some point. Of that number, 13 percent had trained in first aid in the last two years and 52 percent had first aid training in the last five years.

Respondents also were asked about their willingness to provide aid to bleeding victims in two different scenarios: a car crash and a mass shooting.

Within the context of the two scenarios, the study authors reported that:

Of the 941 respondents able to provide first aid, 98 percent indicated they would be “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to attempt bleeding control on a family member with a leg wound. Within this subgroup, 62 percent indicated they would apply pressure or compression to the wound, 36 percent would apply a tourniquet, 6 percent would cover or wrap the wound in a bandage, and 2 percent would elevate the injured leg.

When presented with a scenario of trying to stop severe bleeding in a car crash victim who is unknown to them, 92 percent of a random half sample of respondents indicated they would be very likely (61 percent) or somewhat likely (31 percent) to act.

In a mass shooting scenario, 75 percent of the other random half sample responded that they would attempt to give first aid if it seemed safe to act, 16 percent responded that they would wait to see what happens, and 8 percent said they would leave the area. In terms of assisting if the situation seemed safe, 94 percent responded that they would be very likely (62 percent) or somewhat likely (32 percent) to try to help a stranger.

Many respondents reported having major or some concern about several issues related to trying to stop severe bleeding in someone whom they did not know. Specifically, respondents expressed concern about seeing someone bleeding heavily (30 percent), becoming contaminated with a disease (61 percent), endangering personal safety (43 percent), causing a victim additional pain or injury (65 percent), and being responsible for a bad outcome (61 percent). Within the context of rendering assistance in the shooting scenario, 71 percent expressed concern about “putting themselves in physical danger from additional violence.”

Respondents also were asked about their interest in taking a bleeding control class and their support for requiring bleeding control kits in public places. Among the respondents who were physically able to provide first aid, 82 percent said they would be “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in attending a two-hour bleeding control course.

In addition, 93 percent supported the public placement of bleeding control kits (containing gloves, tourniquets, and compression dressings).

The authors also noted strong public approval (91 percent of all surveyed) for training and equipping police officers for severe bleeding control to act as soon as possible before the arrival of EMS personnel, with 65 percent also supporting “faster access of EMS to victims in areas that may not be totally secure.”

“It takes internal fortitude to want to get involved as an immediate responder. We were overwhelmed to learn that the public is prepared to accept this responsibility,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Moving forward, we plan to use these new insights to develop a training program for the public, not just health care professionals, so civilians can learn how to act as immediate responders. We want to steer interested people toward getting the right training and to understand when victims are experiencing the signs of massive bleeding so they can ‘stop the bleed’ and save lives.”

Many civilians have expressed interest in taking a bleeding control training course that would empower them to immediately assist victims of active shooter and other intentional mass casualty events at the point of wounding, according to the results of a national poll published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS). Furthermore, most civilians support training and equipping police officers to perform severe bleeding control on victims as soon as possible, rather than wait for emergency medical services (EMS) personnel to arrive on the scene. Survey respondents also supported the placement of bleeding control kits in public places where large crowds gather, similar to the way that automatic external defibrillators are now found in airports and shopping malls.

Working to save lives

The Joint Committee to Create a National Policy to Enhance Survivability from Intentional Mass Casualty and Active Shooter Events, convened by the American College of Surgeons, recommends careful consideration of these study results. The committee’s deliberations are known as the Hartford Consensus™. The Hartford Consensus reports have been published in the Bulletin and JACS since the group’s formation in 2013 and promote the group’s core principle that “no one should die from uncontrolled bleeding.”

To that end, the Hartford Consensus calls for providing law enforcement officers with the training and equipment needed to act before EMS personnel arrive, providing EMS professionals with quicker access to the wounded, and training civilian bystanders to act as immediate responders. This element from the Hartford Consensus is at the heart of the “Stop the Bleed” campaign launched by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the National Security Council.

“We know that to save life and limb, you need to stop the bleeding very early—within five to 10 minutes—or victims can lose their lives,” said ACS Regent Lenworth M. Jacobs, Jr., MD, MPH, FACS, Chair of the Hartford Consensus and director of the Trauma Institute at Hartford Hospital, CT. “However, until now, there has been no clear indication of how well trained the general public is in bleeding control and how willing they might be to participate as immediate responders until professionals arrive on the scene.”

Public ready and willing to act

Langer Research Associates, New York, NY, conducted a national telephone survey of the general public, November 6−11, 2015, concluding just two days before the terrorist attacks in Paris. A total of 1,051 telephone interviews were conducted—528 via cellphone and 523 via landline. Respondents were asked whether they had ever participated in first aid training, and, if so, when and whether it included bleeding control instruction. Nearly half of all respondents (47 percent) said that they had received first aid training at some point. Of that number, 13 percent had trained in first aid in the last two years and 52 percent had first aid training in the last five years.

Respondents also were asked about their willingness to provide aid to bleeding victims in two different scenarios: a car crash and a mass shooting.

Within the context of the two scenarios, the study authors reported that:

Of the 941 respondents able to provide first aid, 98 percent indicated they would be “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to attempt bleeding control on a family member with a leg wound. Within this subgroup, 62 percent indicated they would apply pressure or compression to the wound, 36 percent would apply a tourniquet, 6 percent would cover or wrap the wound in a bandage, and 2 percent would elevate the injured leg.

When presented with a scenario of trying to stop severe bleeding in a car crash victim who is unknown to them, 92 percent of a random half sample of respondents indicated they would be very likely (61 percent) or somewhat likely (31 percent) to act.

In a mass shooting scenario, 75 percent of the other random half sample responded that they would attempt to give first aid if it seemed safe to act, 16 percent responded that they would wait to see what happens, and 8 percent said they would leave the area. In terms of assisting if the situation seemed safe, 94 percent responded that they would be very likely (62 percent) or somewhat likely (32 percent) to try to help a stranger.

Many respondents reported having major or some concern about several issues related to trying to stop severe bleeding in someone whom they did not know. Specifically, respondents expressed concern about seeing someone bleeding heavily (30 percent), becoming contaminated with a disease (61 percent), endangering personal safety (43 percent), causing a victim additional pain or injury (65 percent), and being responsible for a bad outcome (61 percent). Within the context of rendering assistance in the shooting scenario, 71 percent expressed concern about “putting themselves in physical danger from additional violence.”

Respondents also were asked about their interest in taking a bleeding control class and their support for requiring bleeding control kits in public places. Among the respondents who were physically able to provide first aid, 82 percent said they would be “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in attending a two-hour bleeding control course.

In addition, 93 percent supported the public placement of bleeding control kits (containing gloves, tourniquets, and compression dressings).

The authors also noted strong public approval (91 percent of all surveyed) for training and equipping police officers for severe bleeding control to act as soon as possible before the arrival of EMS personnel, with 65 percent also supporting “faster access of EMS to victims in areas that may not be totally secure.”

“It takes internal fortitude to want to get involved as an immediate responder. We were overwhelmed to learn that the public is prepared to accept this responsibility,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Moving forward, we plan to use these new insights to develop a training program for the public, not just health care professionals, so civilians can learn how to act as immediate responders. We want to steer interested people toward getting the right training and to understand when victims are experiencing the signs of massive bleeding so they can ‘stop the bleed’ and save lives.”

Many civilians have expressed interest in taking a bleeding control training course that would empower them to immediately assist victims of active shooter and other intentional mass casualty events at the point of wounding, according to the results of a national poll published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS). Furthermore, most civilians support training and equipping police officers to perform severe bleeding control on victims as soon as possible, rather than wait for emergency medical services (EMS) personnel to arrive on the scene. Survey respondents also supported the placement of bleeding control kits in public places where large crowds gather, similar to the way that automatic external defibrillators are now found in airports and shopping malls.

Working to save lives

The Joint Committee to Create a National Policy to Enhance Survivability from Intentional Mass Casualty and Active Shooter Events, convened by the American College of Surgeons, recommends careful consideration of these study results. The committee’s deliberations are known as the Hartford Consensus™. The Hartford Consensus reports have been published in the Bulletin and JACS since the group’s formation in 2013 and promote the group’s core principle that “no one should die from uncontrolled bleeding.”

To that end, the Hartford Consensus calls for providing law enforcement officers with the training and equipment needed to act before EMS personnel arrive, providing EMS professionals with quicker access to the wounded, and training civilian bystanders to act as immediate responders. This element from the Hartford Consensus is at the heart of the “Stop the Bleed” campaign launched by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the National Security Council.

“We know that to save life and limb, you need to stop the bleeding very early—within five to 10 minutes—or victims can lose their lives,” said ACS Regent Lenworth M. Jacobs, Jr., MD, MPH, FACS, Chair of the Hartford Consensus and director of the Trauma Institute at Hartford Hospital, CT. “However, until now, there has been no clear indication of how well trained the general public is in bleeding control and how willing they might be to participate as immediate responders until professionals arrive on the scene.”

Public ready and willing to act

Langer Research Associates, New York, NY, conducted a national telephone survey of the general public, November 6−11, 2015, concluding just two days before the terrorist attacks in Paris. A total of 1,051 telephone interviews were conducted—528 via cellphone and 523 via landline. Respondents were asked whether they had ever participated in first aid training, and, if so, when and whether it included bleeding control instruction. Nearly half of all respondents (47 percent) said that they had received first aid training at some point. Of that number, 13 percent had trained in first aid in the last two years and 52 percent had first aid training in the last five years.

Respondents also were asked about their willingness to provide aid to bleeding victims in two different scenarios: a car crash and a mass shooting.

Within the context of the two scenarios, the study authors reported that:

Of the 941 respondents able to provide first aid, 98 percent indicated they would be “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to attempt bleeding control on a family member with a leg wound. Within this subgroup, 62 percent indicated they would apply pressure or compression to the wound, 36 percent would apply a tourniquet, 6 percent would cover or wrap the wound in a bandage, and 2 percent would elevate the injured leg.

When presented with a scenario of trying to stop severe bleeding in a car crash victim who is unknown to them, 92 percent of a random half sample of respondents indicated they would be very likely (61 percent) or somewhat likely (31 percent) to act.

In a mass shooting scenario, 75 percent of the other random half sample responded that they would attempt to give first aid if it seemed safe to act, 16 percent responded that they would wait to see what happens, and 8 percent said they would leave the area. In terms of assisting if the situation seemed safe, 94 percent responded that they would be very likely (62 percent) or somewhat likely (32 percent) to try to help a stranger.

Many respondents reported having major or some concern about several issues related to trying to stop severe bleeding in someone whom they did not know. Specifically, respondents expressed concern about seeing someone bleeding heavily (30 percent), becoming contaminated with a disease (61 percent), endangering personal safety (43 percent), causing a victim additional pain or injury (65 percent), and being responsible for a bad outcome (61 percent). Within the context of rendering assistance in the shooting scenario, 71 percent expressed concern about “putting themselves in physical danger from additional violence.”

Respondents also were asked about their interest in taking a bleeding control class and their support for requiring bleeding control kits in public places. Among the respondents who were physically able to provide first aid, 82 percent said they would be “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in attending a two-hour bleeding control course.

In addition, 93 percent supported the public placement of bleeding control kits (containing gloves, tourniquets, and compression dressings).

The authors also noted strong public approval (91 percent of all surveyed) for training and equipping police officers for severe bleeding control to act as soon as possible before the arrival of EMS personnel, with 65 percent also supporting “faster access of EMS to victims in areas that may not be totally secure.”

“It takes internal fortitude to want to get involved as an immediate responder. We were overwhelmed to learn that the public is prepared to accept this responsibility,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Moving forward, we plan to use these new insights to develop a training program for the public, not just health care professionals, so civilians can learn how to act as immediate responders. We want to steer interested people toward getting the right training and to understand when victims are experiencing the signs of massive bleeding so they can ‘stop the bleed’ and save lives.”

Approximately 300 surgeons and surgical residents participated in the advocacy portion of the 2016 American College of Surgeons (ACS) Leadership & Advocacy Summit. The event provided participants with an opportunity to develop their advocacy skills, learn about legislative and health policy priorities, and advocate in meetings with members of Congress and their staffs.

Surgeons asked lawmakers to use their oversight authority to encourage the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to adopt meaningful quality measures, and physician-developed Alternative Payment Models. ACS members also asked their elected officials to support the Responsible Data Transparency Act, legislation that is being developed by Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.). The College is committed to maintaining transparency in the Medicare system to promote high-quality patient care. At issue, however, are third-party groups that are evading established, accurate, valid, and transparent pathways to sensitive Medicare data by using Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain raw physician claims data. This legislation would prevent groups from using questionable, non–risk-adjusted methodologies to conduct performance analyses and publish potentially misleading physician performance ratings on public websites.

Other issues discussed at the Capitol Hill meetings include promotion of the Ensuring Access to General Surgery Act of 2016, legislation being developed that would require that a study be conducted to designate general surgery Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs); cancer-related concerns, including education on the importance of Commission on Cancer accreditation; and improved access to trauma care. Details about the ACS Leadership & Advocacy Summit will be published in the May SurgeonsVoice Monthly and the July issue of the Bulletin at http://bulletin.facs.org/.

Approximately 300 surgeons and surgical residents participated in the advocacy portion of the 2016 American College of Surgeons (ACS) Leadership & Advocacy Summit. The event provided participants with an opportunity to develop their advocacy skills, learn about legislative and health policy priorities, and advocate in meetings with members of Congress and their staffs.

Surgeons asked lawmakers to use their oversight authority to encourage the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to adopt meaningful quality measures, and physician-developed Alternative Payment Models. ACS members also asked their elected officials to support the Responsible Data Transparency Act, legislation that is being developed by Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.). The College is committed to maintaining transparency in the Medicare system to promote high-quality patient care. At issue, however, are third-party groups that are evading established, accurate, valid, and transparent pathways to sensitive Medicare data by using Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain raw physician claims data. This legislation would prevent groups from using questionable, non–risk-adjusted methodologies to conduct performance analyses and publish potentially misleading physician performance ratings on public websites.

Other issues discussed at the Capitol Hill meetings include promotion of the Ensuring Access to General Surgery Act of 2016, legislation being developed that would require that a study be conducted to designate general surgery Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs); cancer-related concerns, including education on the importance of Commission on Cancer accreditation; and improved access to trauma care. Details about the ACS Leadership & Advocacy Summit will be published in the May SurgeonsVoice Monthly and the July issue of the Bulletin at http://bulletin.facs.org/.

Approximately 300 surgeons and surgical residents participated in the advocacy portion of the 2016 American College of Surgeons (ACS) Leadership & Advocacy Summit. The event provided participants with an opportunity to develop their advocacy skills, learn about legislative and health policy priorities, and advocate in meetings with members of Congress and their staffs.

Surgeons asked lawmakers to use their oversight authority to encourage the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to adopt meaningful quality measures, and physician-developed Alternative Payment Models. ACS members also asked their elected officials to support the Responsible Data Transparency Act, legislation that is being developed by Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.). The College is committed to maintaining transparency in the Medicare system to promote high-quality patient care. At issue, however, are third-party groups that are evading established, accurate, valid, and transparent pathways to sensitive Medicare data by using Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain raw physician claims data. This legislation would prevent groups from using questionable, non–risk-adjusted methodologies to conduct performance analyses and publish potentially misleading physician performance ratings on public websites.

Other issues discussed at the Capitol Hill meetings include promotion of the Ensuring Access to General Surgery Act of 2016, legislation being developed that would require that a study be conducted to designate general surgery Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs); cancer-related concerns, including education on the importance of Commission on Cancer accreditation; and improved access to trauma care. Details about the ACS Leadership & Advocacy Summit will be published in the May SurgeonsVoice Monthly and the July issue of the Bulletin at http://bulletin.facs.org/.

The way Dr. Marci L. Bowers sees it, societal acceptance of transgender persons has come a long way, and the future of transgender surgery is bright.

“Who thought that we’d have our decathlon winner Bruce Jenner become Caitlyn?” Dr. Bowers said at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons in Indian Wells, Calif. “Who thought that the brothers who created “The Matrix” movies [Larry and Andy Wachowski] would become sisters? All in this past year?”

As the first transgender surgeon to perform transgender surgery in North America, Dr. Bowers knows of what she speaks. In fact, she recently joined the faculty at Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center in New York to help launch what she said will be the first U.S.-based surgical training program for transgender medicine in nearly 40 years.

“An academic institution doing these procedures is really revolutionary,” she said. “I think it’s going to really help how things are taught and described to practitioners.”

She said she also hopes the effort helps stem the “high percentage” of transgender teenagers who attempt or commit suicide. According to 7,261 transgender students in grades 6-12 who responded to the 2009 National School Climate Survey, 61% reported feeling unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and 40% because of how they expressed their gender; 19% said they have been punched, kicked, or injured with a weapon on at least one occasion within the last year because of their sexual orientation and 13% because of their gender expression; and 53% reported cyberbullying because of their gender identity.

“We need to stop losing these people,” she said. “My kids are now in their early 20s. This generation is asking for honesty in the areas of sexuality and gender identity.”

Dr. Bowers, who graduated from the University of Minnesota Medical School in 1986 and did her ob.gyn. residency at the University of Washington, Seattle, characterized the notion of being “misgendered” as a biologic process. “If you look around nature, there is no single measure anywhere in biology that offers only two choices, besides gender,” said Dr. Bowers, who underwent male to female reassignment surgery at age 39. “So when you think about it, the world is represented by a spectrum; it’s represented by diversity. That’s what transgender is, the inner concept of maleness and femaleness. It can’t be just two choices. This is what’s coming to the surface as this movement takes hold.”

After practicing ob.gyn. in Seattle for 13 years, Dr. Bowers relocated to Trinidad, Colo., where she learned and began to practice transgender surgery under the tutelage of the late Dr. Stanley Biber, who performed more than 4,000 sex reassignment surgeries. After working there for 8 years, Dr. Bowers moved her practice to Burlingame, Calif., where she currently performs about 140 male to female operations each year and has a 3-year waiting list. During each 3-hour operation the testicles are removed, the glans penis becomes the clitoris, the scrotum becomes the labia majora, the urethra becomes the labia minora mucosa, the scrotum/penile skin becomes the vagina, and the Cowper’s glands and prostate are retained. Results are “rather convincing,” she said.

Most patients require a hospital stay of up to 3 days, and the most common complication is wound separation/dehiscence, which occurs in 3%-9% of cases. Out-of-pocket costs average about $25,000 per case, but a growing number of insurers now pay for the procedure.

“A dozen years ago, only one company in the Fortune 500 covered transgender surgery,” she said. “Now in our practice, nearly 90% of insurers do, about 70% of the Fortune 500 companies do, and 12 states mandate coverage for all of their citizens to be covered for transgender surgery. It’s really changed.”

In 2009 the American Medical Association passed a resolution supporting public and private insurance coverage for the treatment of gender identity disorder. According to Dr. Bowers, this came about in part because of a 2009 landmark study conducted by the National Center for Transgender Quality and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force that found that more than half of transgender and gender nonconforming people who were bullied, harassed, or assaulted in school because of their gender identity have attempted suicide. In 2011, ACOG’s Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women published an opinion on health care for transgender individuals. Part of its recommendation was that ob. gyns. “should be prepared to assist or refer transgender individuals for routine treatment and screening as well as hormonal and surgical therapies.” According to guidelines from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), individuals seeking transgender surgery should undergo a psychological evaluation, 1 year of cross-sex hormone therapy, and 1 year of desired gender role, and be at least 18 years of age before undergoing surgery itself.

“Gender identity is established early; this is not something that somebody wakes up with,” said Dr. Bowers, who has appeared on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” “CBS Sunday Morning,” “Discovery Health,” and CNN, and was named one of Huffington Post’s 50 Transgender Icons. “Yes, they need to have a psychological evaluation. Yes, they need to live in their desired gender role, and yes, they need to be on hormones, but other than that, they rarely regret their decision to move forward medically and surgically. Almost never.”

During a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Dr. Henry Ng noted that some transgender patients are ambivalent about undergoing gender reassignment surgery. “A lot of them don’t want surgery because it’s not a covered benefit under most health plans, it’s expensive, and it does require a lot of healing time because it’s a very invasive procedure,” said Dr. Ng of the departments of internal medicine and pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. “Especially for certain procedures like phalloplasty, those procedures have not been developed to a point where we can avoid a lot of complications.”

Dr. Ng, who is also clinical director of the MetroHealth Pride Clinic in Cleveland, noted that general health screening guidelines for transgender patients can be found at www.transhealth.ucsf.edu/protocols. “The good news is that it’s really no different than that versus gender people: cardiovascular health; tobacco use; addressing issues of mood disorders/depression, in part related to the experience of microaggressions and macroaggressions from discrimination, violence, and hate-motivated violence on a day-to-day basis; thyroid disease; respiratory illnesses that may be associated with increased use of tobacco products; sexual health; and vaccinations,” he said. “These are all important to include in a general health screening for transgender people.” A free consultation service known as TransLine offers physicians clinical information about transgender issues and individualized case consultation. For information, visit www.project-health.org/transline.

According to the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Quality Index, scores of major employers in the United States, including 3M, Amazon.com, American Express, Boeing, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, Morgan Stanley, Nike, Procter & Gamble, Starbucks, UnitedHealth Group, Visa, and Xerox, offer at least one transgender-inclusive health care coverage plan. A list of insurers who offer transgender health coverage can be found here. The Human Rights Campaign also notes that seven states that have both bans on insurance exclusions for transgender health care and provide transgender inclusive benefits for state employees: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, California, Oregon, and Washington. The National Center for Transgender Quality notes that since May of 2014, Medicare coverage decisions for transition-related surgeries are “made individually on the basis of medical need and applicable standards of care, similar to other doctor or hospital services under Medicare.”

When a patient realizes that his or her employer has not opted in to cover transgender care as part of its health insurance offerings, “it’s heartbreaking to be the middle man,” Dr. Cecile Unger, a surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic center for female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, said in an interview. “Some patients start calculating how much they need to save weekly or monthly [in order to pay out of pocket]. They figure out where they want to have surgery. We provide them with the exact self-pay numbers. They usually will shop around a bit to see what some of the other providers are offering. Some patients will try to get their names on the books a year-and-a-half or two ahead of time.”

The cost of procedures varies. For example, the price of a vaginoplasty at the Philadelphia Center for Transgender Surgery is $12,600, plus $7,150 in anesthesia, operating room, and hospital stay charges, for a total of $19,750. The center’s cost for female to male surgery at the center are slightly higher. For example, the price of a phalloplasty, scrotoplasty, testicular implants, glansplasty, and transposition of the clitoris is $15,500, plus $5,750 in anesthesia, OR, and hospital charges, for a total of $21,250.

Wound separation and wound-healing problems are the most common complications after gender reassignment surgery, Dr. Unger said, “but within 4-12 weeks usually those issues resolve themselves with a bit of conservative wound care, and don’t require more surgery. Infection is quite rare. Hematoma formation is not common in the first few days after surgery. In female to male procedures, there’s a bit of a risk for stricture of the urethra, which can lead to problems with voiding and fistula formation.”

Discussing realistic expectations with patients preoperatively is key, Dr. Unger said, especially in terms of scarring and cosmesis. “Most of the time you get a great result, but patients should also understand that everybody’s anatomy is different and everybody’s wound healing is different, so [they] have to be flexible and understand that secondary procedures are sometimes necessary to get the perfect outcomes,” she said.

Another procedure Dr. Bowers provides in her practice is functional clitoroplasty for females who have undergone genital mutation, a procedure that has impacted an estimated 140 million women worldwide, especially those in Indonesia. “These women often have never had orgasm in their life because all or part of the clitoris and the labia have been excised,” Dr. Bowers said. “It’s one of the great human tragedies.”

In a procedure that takes about an hour, Dr. Bowers restores refibulation and sensation for women who have been genitally mutilated – at no charge to them. “We 100% of the time find the clitoris when we do these operations,” she said. “We refibulate, we release the suspensory ligament, we anchor the clitoral body down, and that restores function. From the letters I receive, this is a miracle for these patients, to feel orgasm for the first time in your life. Imagine restoring sight to a blind person. It’s that profound.”

Dr. Bowers disclosed that she is a member of WPATH and that she serves on the board of directors of GLAAD and the Transgender Law Center. The meeting was jointly sponsored by the American College of Surgeons.

[email protected]

The way Dr. Marci L. Bowers sees it, societal acceptance of transgender persons has come a long way, and the future of transgender surgery is bright.

“Who thought that we’d have our decathlon winner Bruce Jenner become Caitlyn?” Dr. Bowers said at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons in Indian Wells, Calif. “Who thought that the brothers who created “The Matrix” movies [Larry and Andy Wachowski] would become sisters? All in this past year?”

As the first transgender surgeon to perform transgender surgery in North America, Dr. Bowers knows of what she speaks. In fact, she recently joined the faculty at Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center in New York to help launch what she said will be the first U.S.-based surgical training program for transgender medicine in nearly 40 years.

“An academic institution doing these procedures is really revolutionary,” she said. “I think it’s going to really help how things are taught and described to practitioners.”

She said she also hopes the effort helps stem the “high percentage” of transgender teenagers who attempt or commit suicide. According to 7,261 transgender students in grades 6-12 who responded to the 2009 National School Climate Survey, 61% reported feeling unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and 40% because of how they expressed their gender; 19% said they have been punched, kicked, or injured with a weapon on at least one occasion within the last year because of their sexual orientation and 13% because of their gender expression; and 53% reported cyberbullying because of their gender identity.

“We need to stop losing these people,” she said. “My kids are now in their early 20s. This generation is asking for honesty in the areas of sexuality and gender identity.”

Dr. Bowers, who graduated from the University of Minnesota Medical School in 1986 and did her ob.gyn. residency at the University of Washington, Seattle, characterized the notion of being “misgendered” as a biologic process. “If you look around nature, there is no single measure anywhere in biology that offers only two choices, besides gender,” said Dr. Bowers, who underwent male to female reassignment surgery at age 39. “So when you think about it, the world is represented by a spectrum; it’s represented by diversity. That’s what transgender is, the inner concept of maleness and femaleness. It can’t be just two choices. This is what’s coming to the surface as this movement takes hold.”

After practicing ob.gyn. in Seattle for 13 years, Dr. Bowers relocated to Trinidad, Colo., where she learned and began to practice transgender surgery under the tutelage of the late Dr. Stanley Biber, who performed more than 4,000 sex reassignment surgeries. After working there for 8 years, Dr. Bowers moved her practice to Burlingame, Calif., where she currently performs about 140 male to female operations each year and has a 3-year waiting list. During each 3-hour operation the testicles are removed, the glans penis becomes the clitoris, the scrotum becomes the labia majora, the urethra becomes the labia minora mucosa, the scrotum/penile skin becomes the vagina, and the Cowper’s glands and prostate are retained. Results are “rather convincing,” she said.

Most patients require a hospital stay of up to 3 days, and the most common complication is wound separation/dehiscence, which occurs in 3%-9% of cases. Out-of-pocket costs average about $25,000 per case, but a growing number of insurers now pay for the procedure.

“A dozen years ago, only one company in the Fortune 500 covered transgender surgery,” she said. “Now in our practice, nearly 90% of insurers do, about 70% of the Fortune 500 companies do, and 12 states mandate coverage for all of their citizens to be covered for transgender surgery. It’s really changed.”

In 2009 the American Medical Association passed a resolution supporting public and private insurance coverage for the treatment of gender identity disorder. According to Dr. Bowers, this came about in part because of a 2009 landmark study conducted by the National Center for Transgender Quality and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force that found that more than half of transgender and gender nonconforming people who were bullied, harassed, or assaulted in school because of their gender identity have attempted suicide. In 2011, ACOG’s Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women published an opinion on health care for transgender individuals. Part of its recommendation was that ob. gyns. “should be prepared to assist or refer transgender individuals for routine treatment and screening as well as hormonal and surgical therapies.” According to guidelines from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), individuals seeking transgender surgery should undergo a psychological evaluation, 1 year of cross-sex hormone therapy, and 1 year of desired gender role, and be at least 18 years of age before undergoing surgery itself.

“Gender identity is established early; this is not something that somebody wakes up with,” said Dr. Bowers, who has appeared on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” “CBS Sunday Morning,” “Discovery Health,” and CNN, and was named one of Huffington Post’s 50 Transgender Icons. “Yes, they need to have a psychological evaluation. Yes, they need to live in their desired gender role, and yes, they need to be on hormones, but other than that, they rarely regret their decision to move forward medically and surgically. Almost never.”

During a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Dr. Henry Ng noted that some transgender patients are ambivalent about undergoing gender reassignment surgery. “A lot of them don’t want surgery because it’s not a covered benefit under most health plans, it’s expensive, and it does require a lot of healing time because it’s a very invasive procedure,” said Dr. Ng of the departments of internal medicine and pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. “Especially for certain procedures like phalloplasty, those procedures have not been developed to a point where we can avoid a lot of complications.”

Dr. Ng, who is also clinical director of the MetroHealth Pride Clinic in Cleveland, noted that general health screening guidelines for transgender patients can be found at www.transhealth.ucsf.edu/protocols. “The good news is that it’s really no different than that versus gender people: cardiovascular health; tobacco use; addressing issues of mood disorders/depression, in part related to the experience of microaggressions and macroaggressions from discrimination, violence, and hate-motivated violence on a day-to-day basis; thyroid disease; respiratory illnesses that may be associated with increased use of tobacco products; sexual health; and vaccinations,” he said. “These are all important to include in a general health screening for transgender people.” A free consultation service known as TransLine offers physicians clinical information about transgender issues and individualized case consultation. For information, visit www.project-health.org/transline.

According to the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Quality Index, scores of major employers in the United States, including 3M, Amazon.com, American Express, Boeing, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, Morgan Stanley, Nike, Procter & Gamble, Starbucks, UnitedHealth Group, Visa, and Xerox, offer at least one transgender-inclusive health care coverage plan. A list of insurers who offer transgender health coverage can be found here. The Human Rights Campaign also notes that seven states that have both bans on insurance exclusions for transgender health care and provide transgender inclusive benefits for state employees: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, California, Oregon, and Washington. The National Center for Transgender Quality notes that since May of 2014, Medicare coverage decisions for transition-related surgeries are “made individually on the basis of medical need and applicable standards of care, similar to other doctor or hospital services under Medicare.”

When a patient realizes that his or her employer has not opted in to cover transgender care as part of its health insurance offerings, “it’s heartbreaking to be the middle man,” Dr. Cecile Unger, a surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic center for female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, said in an interview. “Some patients start calculating how much they need to save weekly or monthly [in order to pay out of pocket]. They figure out where they want to have surgery. We provide them with the exact self-pay numbers. They usually will shop around a bit to see what some of the other providers are offering. Some patients will try to get their names on the books a year-and-a-half or two ahead of time.”

The cost of procedures varies. For example, the price of a vaginoplasty at the Philadelphia Center for Transgender Surgery is $12,600, plus $7,150 in anesthesia, operating room, and hospital stay charges, for a total of $19,750. The center’s cost for female to male surgery at the center are slightly higher. For example, the price of a phalloplasty, scrotoplasty, testicular implants, glansplasty, and transposition of the clitoris is $15,500, plus $5,750 in anesthesia, OR, and hospital charges, for a total of $21,250.

Wound separation and wound-healing problems are the most common complications after gender reassignment surgery, Dr. Unger said, “but within 4-12 weeks usually those issues resolve themselves with a bit of conservative wound care, and don’t require more surgery. Infection is quite rare. Hematoma formation is not common in the first few days after surgery. In female to male procedures, there’s a bit of a risk for stricture of the urethra, which can lead to problems with voiding and fistula formation.”

Discussing realistic expectations with patients preoperatively is key, Dr. Unger said, especially in terms of scarring and cosmesis. “Most of the time you get a great result, but patients should also understand that everybody’s anatomy is different and everybody’s wound healing is different, so [they] have to be flexible and understand that secondary procedures are sometimes necessary to get the perfect outcomes,” she said.

Another procedure Dr. Bowers provides in her practice is functional clitoroplasty for females who have undergone genital mutation, a procedure that has impacted an estimated 140 million women worldwide, especially those in Indonesia. “These women often have never had orgasm in their life because all or part of the clitoris and the labia have been excised,” Dr. Bowers said. “It’s one of the great human tragedies.”

In a procedure that takes about an hour, Dr. Bowers restores refibulation and sensation for women who have been genitally mutilated – at no charge to them. “We 100% of the time find the clitoris when we do these operations,” she said. “We refibulate, we release the suspensory ligament, we anchor the clitoral body down, and that restores function. From the letters I receive, this is a miracle for these patients, to feel orgasm for the first time in your life. Imagine restoring sight to a blind person. It’s that profound.”

Dr. Bowers disclosed that she is a member of WPATH and that she serves on the board of directors of GLAAD and the Transgender Law Center. The meeting was jointly sponsored by the American College of Surgeons.

[email protected]

The way Dr. Marci L. Bowers sees it, societal acceptance of transgender persons has come a long way, and the future of transgender surgery is bright.

“Who thought that we’d have our decathlon winner Bruce Jenner become Caitlyn?” Dr. Bowers said at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons in Indian Wells, Calif. “Who thought that the brothers who created “The Matrix” movies [Larry and Andy Wachowski] would become sisters? All in this past year?”

As the first transgender surgeon to perform transgender surgery in North America, Dr. Bowers knows of what she speaks. In fact, she recently joined the faculty at Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center in New York to help launch what she said will be the first U.S.-based surgical training program for transgender medicine in nearly 40 years.

“An academic institution doing these procedures is really revolutionary,” she said. “I think it’s going to really help how things are taught and described to practitioners.”

She said she also hopes the effort helps stem the “high percentage” of transgender teenagers who attempt or commit suicide. According to 7,261 transgender students in grades 6-12 who responded to the 2009 National School Climate Survey, 61% reported feeling unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and 40% because of how they expressed their gender; 19% said they have been punched, kicked, or injured with a weapon on at least one occasion within the last year because of their sexual orientation and 13% because of their gender expression; and 53% reported cyberbullying because of their gender identity.

“We need to stop losing these people,” she said. “My kids are now in their early 20s. This generation is asking for honesty in the areas of sexuality and gender identity.”

Dr. Bowers, who graduated from the University of Minnesota Medical School in 1986 and did her ob.gyn. residency at the University of Washington, Seattle, characterized the notion of being “misgendered” as a biologic process. “If you look around nature, there is no single measure anywhere in biology that offers only two choices, besides gender,” said Dr. Bowers, who underwent male to female reassignment surgery at age 39. “So when you think about it, the world is represented by a spectrum; it’s represented by diversity. That’s what transgender is, the inner concept of maleness and femaleness. It can’t be just two choices. This is what’s coming to the surface as this movement takes hold.”

After practicing ob.gyn. in Seattle for 13 years, Dr. Bowers relocated to Trinidad, Colo., where she learned and began to practice transgender surgery under the tutelage of the late Dr. Stanley Biber, who performed more than 4,000 sex reassignment surgeries. After working there for 8 years, Dr. Bowers moved her practice to Burlingame, Calif., where she currently performs about 140 male to female operations each year and has a 3-year waiting list. During each 3-hour operation the testicles are removed, the glans penis becomes the clitoris, the scrotum becomes the labia majora, the urethra becomes the labia minora mucosa, the scrotum/penile skin becomes the vagina, and the Cowper’s glands and prostate are retained. Results are “rather convincing,” she said.

Most patients require a hospital stay of up to 3 days, and the most common complication is wound separation/dehiscence, which occurs in 3%-9% of cases. Out-of-pocket costs average about $25,000 per case, but a growing number of insurers now pay for the procedure.

“A dozen years ago, only one company in the Fortune 500 covered transgender surgery,” she said. “Now in our practice, nearly 90% of insurers do, about 70% of the Fortune 500 companies do, and 12 states mandate coverage for all of their citizens to be covered for transgender surgery. It’s really changed.”

In 2009 the American Medical Association passed a resolution supporting public and private insurance coverage for the treatment of gender identity disorder. According to Dr. Bowers, this came about in part because of a 2009 landmark study conducted by the National Center for Transgender Quality and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force that found that more than half of transgender and gender nonconforming people who were bullied, harassed, or assaulted in school because of their gender identity have attempted suicide. In 2011, ACOG’s Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women published an opinion on health care for transgender individuals. Part of its recommendation was that ob. gyns. “should be prepared to assist or refer transgender individuals for routine treatment and screening as well as hormonal and surgical therapies.” According to guidelines from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), individuals seeking transgender surgery should undergo a psychological evaluation, 1 year of cross-sex hormone therapy, and 1 year of desired gender role, and be at least 18 years of age before undergoing surgery itself.

“Gender identity is established early; this is not something that somebody wakes up with,” said Dr. Bowers, who has appeared on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” “CBS Sunday Morning,” “Discovery Health,” and CNN, and was named one of Huffington Post’s 50 Transgender Icons. “Yes, they need to have a psychological evaluation. Yes, they need to live in their desired gender role, and yes, they need to be on hormones, but other than that, they rarely regret their decision to move forward medically and surgically. Almost never.”

During a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Dr. Henry Ng noted that some transgender patients are ambivalent about undergoing gender reassignment surgery. “A lot of them don’t want surgery because it’s not a covered benefit under most health plans, it’s expensive, and it does require a lot of healing time because it’s a very invasive procedure,” said Dr. Ng of the departments of internal medicine and pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. “Especially for certain procedures like phalloplasty, those procedures have not been developed to a point where we can avoid a lot of complications.”

Dr. Ng, who is also clinical director of the MetroHealth Pride Clinic in Cleveland, noted that general health screening guidelines for transgender patients can be found at www.transhealth.ucsf.edu/protocols. “The good news is that it’s really no different than that versus gender people: cardiovascular health; tobacco use; addressing issues of mood disorders/depression, in part related to the experience of microaggressions and macroaggressions from discrimination, violence, and hate-motivated violence on a day-to-day basis; thyroid disease; respiratory illnesses that may be associated with increased use of tobacco products; sexual health; and vaccinations,” he said. “These are all important to include in a general health screening for transgender people.” A free consultation service known as TransLine offers physicians clinical information about transgender issues and individualized case consultation. For information, visit www.project-health.org/transline.

According to the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Quality Index, scores of major employers in the United States, including 3M, Amazon.com, American Express, Boeing, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, Morgan Stanley, Nike, Procter & Gamble, Starbucks, UnitedHealth Group, Visa, and Xerox, offer at least one transgender-inclusive health care coverage plan. A list of insurers who offer transgender health coverage can be found here. The Human Rights Campaign also notes that seven states that have both bans on insurance exclusions for transgender health care and provide transgender inclusive benefits for state employees: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, California, Oregon, and Washington. The National Center for Transgender Quality notes that since May of 2014, Medicare coverage decisions for transition-related surgeries are “made individually on the basis of medical need and applicable standards of care, similar to other doctor or hospital services under Medicare.”

When a patient realizes that his or her employer has not opted in to cover transgender care as part of its health insurance offerings, “it’s heartbreaking to be the middle man,” Dr. Cecile Unger, a surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic center for female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, said in an interview. “Some patients start calculating how much they need to save weekly or monthly [in order to pay out of pocket]. They figure out where they want to have surgery. We provide them with the exact self-pay numbers. They usually will shop around a bit to see what some of the other providers are offering. Some patients will try to get their names on the books a year-and-a-half or two ahead of time.”

The cost of procedures varies. For example, the price of a vaginoplasty at the Philadelphia Center for Transgender Surgery is $12,600, plus $7,150 in anesthesia, operating room, and hospital stay charges, for a total of $19,750. The center’s cost for female to male surgery at the center are slightly higher. For example, the price of a phalloplasty, scrotoplasty, testicular implants, glansplasty, and transposition of the clitoris is $15,500, plus $5,750 in anesthesia, OR, and hospital charges, for a total of $21,250.

Wound separation and wound-healing problems are the most common complications after gender reassignment surgery, Dr. Unger said, “but within 4-12 weeks usually those issues resolve themselves with a bit of conservative wound care, and don’t require more surgery. Infection is quite rare. Hematoma formation is not common in the first few days after surgery. In female to male procedures, there’s a bit of a risk for stricture of the urethra, which can lead to problems with voiding and fistula formation.”

Discussing realistic expectations with patients preoperatively is key, Dr. Unger said, especially in terms of scarring and cosmesis. “Most of the time you get a great result, but patients should also understand that everybody’s anatomy is different and everybody’s wound healing is different, so [they] have to be flexible and understand that secondary procedures are sometimes necessary to get the perfect outcomes,” she said.

Another procedure Dr. Bowers provides in her practice is functional clitoroplasty for females who have undergone genital mutation, a procedure that has impacted an estimated 140 million women worldwide, especially those in Indonesia. “These women often have never had orgasm in their life because all or part of the clitoris and the labia have been excised,” Dr. Bowers said. “It’s one of the great human tragedies.”

In a procedure that takes about an hour, Dr. Bowers restores refibulation and sensation for women who have been genitally mutilated – at no charge to them. “We 100% of the time find the clitoris when we do these operations,” she said. “We refibulate, we release the suspensory ligament, we anchor the clitoral body down, and that restores function. From the letters I receive, this is a miracle for these patients, to feel orgasm for the first time in your life. Imagine restoring sight to a blind person. It’s that profound.”

Dr. Bowers disclosed that she is a member of WPATH and that she serves on the board of directors of GLAAD and the Transgender Law Center. The meeting was jointly sponsored by the American College of Surgeons.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Hysterectomy has long been the first-line therapy for complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia in patients who don’t desire to preserve their fertility. Is it time to consider hormone treatment in a larger population of patients?

That’s the question that experts debated at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Dr. Amanda Nickles Fader, associate professor and director of the Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service* at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said in an interview that changing patient demographics – particularly the growing number of overweight and obese women – are driving the need to consider the use of progestin in more cases. The obesity epidemic translates into younger women developing the condition, and it creates the potential for more complications in surgery, she said. Endometrial hyperplasia is very sensitive to hormone therapy, specifically progestin agents, with 75%-90% response rates with up-front treatment, Dr. Fader added.

But Dr. David Cohn, director of the division of gynecologic oncology at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview that surgery remains the standard of care because it is curative. Hormone treatment is appropriate in selected patients, but it is currently understudied and questions remain about the duration of treatment and about the type of hormones to use, he said.

Dr. Cohn and Dr. Fader both reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryellenny

 *Correction, 5/17/2016: An earlier version of this story misstated Dr. Fader's title. 

WASHINGTON – Hysterectomy has long been the first-line therapy for complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia in patients who don’t desire to preserve their fertility. Is it time to consider hormone treatment in a larger population of patients?

That’s the question that experts debated at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Dr. Amanda Nickles Fader, associate professor and director of the Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service* at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said in an interview that changing patient demographics – particularly the growing number of overweight and obese women – are driving the need to consider the use of progestin in more cases. The obesity epidemic translates into younger women developing the condition, and it creates the potential for more complications in surgery, she said. Endometrial hyperplasia is very sensitive to hormone therapy, specifically progestin agents, with 75%-90% response rates with up-front treatment, Dr. Fader added.

But Dr. David Cohn, director of the division of gynecologic oncology at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview that surgery remains the standard of care because it is curative. Hormone treatment is appropriate in selected patients, but it is currently understudied and questions remain about the duration of treatment and about the type of hormones to use, he said.

Dr. Cohn and Dr. Fader both reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryellenny

 *Correction, 5/17/2016: An earlier version of this story misstated Dr. Fader's title. 

WASHINGTON – Hysterectomy has long been the first-line therapy for complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia in patients who don’t desire to preserve their fertility. Is it time to consider hormone treatment in a larger population of patients?

That’s the question that experts debated at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Dr. Amanda Nickles Fader, associate professor and director of the Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service* at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said in an interview that changing patient demographics – particularly the growing number of overweight and obese women – are driving the need to consider the use of progestin in more cases. The obesity epidemic translates into younger women developing the condition, and it creates the potential for more complications in surgery, she said. Endometrial hyperplasia is very sensitive to hormone therapy, specifically progestin agents, with 75%-90% response rates with up-front treatment, Dr. Fader added.

But Dr. David Cohn, director of the division of gynecologic oncology at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview that surgery remains the standard of care because it is curative. Hormone treatment is appropriate in selected patients, but it is currently understudied and questions remain about the duration of treatment and about the type of hormones to use, he said.

Dr. Cohn and Dr. Fader both reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @maryellenny

 *Correction, 5/17/2016: An earlier version of this story misstated Dr. Fader's title. 

San Francisco – Routine ganglionic plexus ablation increases risk and offers no clinical benefit in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery for advanced atrial fibrillation, according to a randomized Dutch trial.

“Most surgeons who do epicardial ablation do GP [ganglionic plexus] ablation because of the assumption that they are doing something good; that assumption is wrong. GP ablation should not be performed in patients with advanced AF [atrial fibrillation],” said lead investigator Dr. Joris de Groot, a cardiologist at the University of Amsterdam.

Following pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), 117 patients were randomized to GP ablation, and 123 to no GP ablation. GP ablation eliminated 100% of evoked vagal responses; vagal responses remained intact in nearly all of the control subjects.

At 1 year, 70.9% in the GP group compared with 68.4% in control arm were free of recurrence (P = .7); there were no statistically significant differences when the analysis was limited to the 59% of patients who went into the trial with persistent AF or limited to the rest of the patients with paroxysmal AF. Recurrences constituted significantly more atrial tachycardia in the GP group than in the control group. Even after the researchers controlled for a wide variety of demographic, anatomical, and clinical variables, “GP ablation made no difference in atrial fibrillation recurrence at 1 year,” Dr. de Groot said at the annual scientific sessions of the Hearth Rhythm Society.

Meanwhile, major perioperative bleeding occurred in nine patients, all in the GP group, and one required a sternotomy for hemostatic control. Clinically relevant sinus node dysfunction occurred in 12 of the GP group, but only four control patients; six GP patients – but no one in the control arm – required subsequent pacemakers, three while in the hospital after surgery and three during follow-up. Almost 30 patients in each arm required cardioversion during the 3-month blanking period, and about 20 in each arm afterwards.

“The largest randomized study in thoracoscopic surgery for advanced AF to date demonstrates that GP ablation is associated with significantly more periprocedural major bleeding, sinus node dysfunction, and pacemaker implantation, but not with improved rhythm outcome,” the investigators concluded.

Procedure time was 185 +/– 54 minutes in the GP arm, and 168 +/– 54 minutes in the control arm (P = .015). In the GP group, four major GPs and the ligament of Marshall were ablated.

Patients were 60 years old, on average, and three-quarters were men. AF duration was a median of 4 years. Four patients had died at 1 year, all in the GP arm, but none related to the procedure. All antiarrhythmic drugs were stopped after the blanking period; any atrial arrhythmia lasting 30 seconds or longer thereafter was considered a recurrence.

Dr. de Groot disclosed payments for services from AtriCure, Daiichi, and St. Jude Medical and research funding from AtriCure and St. Jude.

[email protected]

San Francisco – Routine ganglionic plexus ablation increases risk and offers no clinical benefit in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery for advanced atrial fibrillation, according to a randomized Dutch trial.

“Most surgeons who do epicardial ablation do GP [ganglionic plexus] ablation because of the assumption that they are doing something good; that assumption is wrong. GP ablation should not be performed in patients with advanced AF [atrial fibrillation],” said lead investigator Dr. Joris de Groot, a cardiologist at the University of Amsterdam.

Following pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), 117 patients were randomized to GP ablation, and 123 to no GP ablation. GP ablation eliminated 100% of evoked vagal responses; vagal responses remained intact in nearly all of the control subjects.

At 1 year, 70.9% in the GP group compared with 68.4% in control arm were free of recurrence (P = .7); there were no statistically significant differences when the analysis was limited to the 59% of patients who went into the trial with persistent AF or limited to the rest of the patients with paroxysmal AF. Recurrences constituted significantly more atrial tachycardia in the GP group than in the control group. Even after the researchers controlled for a wide variety of demographic, anatomical, and clinical variables, “GP ablation made no difference in atrial fibrillation recurrence at 1 year,” Dr. de Groot said at the annual scientific sessions of the Hearth Rhythm Society.

Meanwhile, major perioperative bleeding occurred in nine patients, all in the GP group, and one required a sternotomy for hemostatic control. Clinically relevant sinus node dysfunction occurred in 12 of the GP group, but only four control patients; six GP patients – but no one in the control arm – required subsequent pacemakers, three while in the hospital after surgery and three during follow-up. Almost 30 patients in each arm required cardioversion during the 3-month blanking period, and about 20 in each arm afterwards.

“The largest randomized study in thoracoscopic surgery for advanced AF to date demonstrates that GP ablation is associated with significantly more periprocedural major bleeding, sinus node dysfunction, and pacemaker implantation, but not with improved rhythm outcome,” the investigators concluded.

Procedure time was 185 +/– 54 minutes in the GP arm, and 168 +/– 54 minutes in the control arm (P = .015). In the GP group, four major GPs and the ligament of Marshall were ablated.

Patients were 60 years old, on average, and three-quarters were men. AF duration was a median of 4 years. Four patients had died at 1 year, all in the GP arm, but none related to the procedure. All antiarrhythmic drugs were stopped after the blanking period; any atrial arrhythmia lasting 30 seconds or longer thereafter was considered a recurrence.

Dr. de Groot disclosed payments for services from AtriCure, Daiichi, and St. Jude Medical and research funding from AtriCure and St. Jude.

[email protected]

San Francisco – Routine ganglionic plexus ablation increases risk and offers no clinical benefit in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery for advanced atrial fibrillation, according to a randomized Dutch trial.

“Most surgeons who do epicardial ablation do GP [ganglionic plexus] ablation because of the assumption that they are doing something good; that assumption is wrong. GP ablation should not be performed in patients with advanced AF [atrial fibrillation],” said lead investigator Dr. Joris de Groot, a cardiologist at the University of Amsterdam.

Following pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), 117 patients were randomized to GP ablation, and 123 to no GP ablation. GP ablation eliminated 100% of evoked vagal responses; vagal responses remained intact in nearly all of the control subjects.

At 1 year, 70.9% in the GP group compared with 68.4% in control arm were free of recurrence (P = .7); there were no statistically significant differences when the analysis was limited to the 59% of patients who went into the trial with persistent AF or limited to the rest of the patients with paroxysmal AF. Recurrences constituted significantly more atrial tachycardia in the GP group than in the control group. Even after the researchers controlled for a wide variety of demographic, anatomical, and clinical variables, “GP ablation made no difference in atrial fibrillation recurrence at 1 year,” Dr. de Groot said at the annual scientific sessions of the Hearth Rhythm Society.

Meanwhile, major perioperative bleeding occurred in nine patients, all in the GP group, and one required a sternotomy for hemostatic control. Clinically relevant sinus node dysfunction occurred in 12 of the GP group, but only four control patients; six GP patients – but no one in the control arm – required subsequent pacemakers, three while in the hospital after surgery and three during follow-up. Almost 30 patients in each arm required cardioversion during the 3-month blanking period, and about 20 in each arm afterwards.

“The largest randomized study in thoracoscopic surgery for advanced AF to date demonstrates that GP ablation is associated with significantly more periprocedural major bleeding, sinus node dysfunction, and pacemaker implantation, but not with improved rhythm outcome,” the investigators concluded.

Procedure time was 185 +/– 54 minutes in the GP arm, and 168 +/– 54 minutes in the control arm (P = .015). In the GP group, four major GPs and the ligament of Marshall were ablated.

Patients were 60 years old, on average, and three-quarters were men. AF duration was a median of 4 years. Four patients had died at 1 year, all in the GP arm, but none related to the procedure. All antiarrhythmic drugs were stopped after the blanking period; any atrial arrhythmia lasting 30 seconds or longer thereafter was considered a recurrence.

Dr. de Groot disclosed payments for services from AtriCure, Daiichi, and St. Jude Medical and research funding from AtriCure and St. Jude.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Primary small cell cancer of the anus is a rare but devastating condition and overall survival may not be improved with surgical treatment.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest analysis of its kind to date.

“There are very limited data for patients with anal small cell cancers who need preoperative counseling and risk stratification,” study author Dr. Cornelius A. Thiels said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “There are also no data to guide treatment, so, until now, management was based on the treatment of small cell of the lung, and other anal cancers.”

Cancers of the anal canal are estimated to represent about 2.5% of all gastrointestinal neoplasms, while primary small cell cancer of the anus is believed to account for less than 1% of all anal neoplasms, according to Dr. Thiels, who is a third-year general surgery resident in the department of surgery and a surgical outcomes fellow in the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

In an effort to evaluate the outcomes of patients with primary small cell cancer of the anus, the researchers reviewed their own institutional experience in treating nine patients with this condition between from 1994-2014, as well as National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) records of 174 patients from 1998-2014. The NCDB is maintained by collecting data prospectively from more than 1,500 facilities across the United States and is estimated to capture approximately 70% of all newly diagnosed cases of cancer annually. Institutional data allowed the researchers to identify details, including how these patients presented and what type of chemotherapy they received. However, analysis of a national database was necessary given the rarity of the diagnosis.

In the analysis of NCDB records, the mean patient age was 59 years and 74% were female. Most of the tumors (95%) were high grade and the majority of patients presented with advanced disease (50 with stage IV disease, 49 with stage III disease, 29 with stage II disease, 25 with stage I disease, and 21 with unknown stage). Overall survival was 66% at 12 months and 29% at 36 months. Among patients with stage I-III disease, survival was 72% at 12 months and 39% at 36 months.

Of the 103 patients with stage I-III disease, 95% received medical therapy, 70% underwent medical management alone, while 30% underwent surgery with curative intent. Patients who did not undergo surgery tended to have a higher stage of disease, compared with those who did (57% vs. 26%: P = .005). Overall survival at 36 months was similar between the two groups (33.9% in the surgery group vs. 35.8% in the no surgery group; P = .87).

“Unfortunately, it seems from our own experience and from national data that additional research is needed to determine how best to treat these patients and that surgery may not prolong survival in many of these patients,” Dr. Thiels said. “Although additional research is needed to optimize outcomes for these patients, harnessing the power of a national cancer database like the NCDB allows us to improve our understanding of these otherwise extremely rare, and difficult to study, tumors.”

Dr. Thiels reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Primary small cell cancer of the anus is a rare but devastating condition and overall survival may not be improved with surgical treatment.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest analysis of its kind to date.

“There are very limited data for patients with anal small cell cancers who need preoperative counseling and risk stratification,” study author Dr. Cornelius A. Thiels said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “There are also no data to guide treatment, so, until now, management was based on the treatment of small cell of the lung, and other anal cancers.”

Cancers of the anal canal are estimated to represent about 2.5% of all gastrointestinal neoplasms, while primary small cell cancer of the anus is believed to account for less than 1% of all anal neoplasms, according to Dr. Thiels, who is a third-year general surgery resident in the department of surgery and a surgical outcomes fellow in the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

In an effort to evaluate the outcomes of patients with primary small cell cancer of the anus, the researchers reviewed their own institutional experience in treating nine patients with this condition between from 1994-2014, as well as National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) records of 174 patients from 1998-2014. The NCDB is maintained by collecting data prospectively from more than 1,500 facilities across the United States and is estimated to capture approximately 70% of all newly diagnosed cases of cancer annually. Institutional data allowed the researchers to identify details, including how these patients presented and what type of chemotherapy they received. However, analysis of a national database was necessary given the rarity of the diagnosis.

In the analysis of NCDB records, the mean patient age was 59 years and 74% were female. Most of the tumors (95%) were high grade and the majority of patients presented with advanced disease (50 with stage IV disease, 49 with stage III disease, 29 with stage II disease, 25 with stage I disease, and 21 with unknown stage). Overall survival was 66% at 12 months and 29% at 36 months. Among patients with stage I-III disease, survival was 72% at 12 months and 39% at 36 months.

Of the 103 patients with stage I-III disease, 95% received medical therapy, 70% underwent medical management alone, while 30% underwent surgery with curative intent. Patients who did not undergo surgery tended to have a higher stage of disease, compared with those who did (57% vs. 26%: P = .005). Overall survival at 36 months was similar between the two groups (33.9% in the surgery group vs. 35.8% in the no surgery group; P = .87).

“Unfortunately, it seems from our own experience and from national data that additional research is needed to determine how best to treat these patients and that surgery may not prolong survival in many of these patients,” Dr. Thiels said. “Although additional research is needed to optimize outcomes for these patients, harnessing the power of a national cancer database like the NCDB allows us to improve our understanding of these otherwise extremely rare, and difficult to study, tumors.”

Dr. Thiels reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Primary small cell cancer of the anus is a rare but devastating condition and overall survival may not be improved with surgical treatment.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest analysis of its kind to date.

“There are very limited data for patients with anal small cell cancers who need preoperative counseling and risk stratification,” study author Dr. Cornelius A. Thiels said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “There are also no data to guide treatment, so, until now, management was based on the treatment of small cell of the lung, and other anal cancers.”

Cancers of the anal canal are estimated to represent about 2.5% of all gastrointestinal neoplasms, while primary small cell cancer of the anus is believed to account for less than 1% of all anal neoplasms, according to Dr. Thiels, who is a third-year general surgery resident in the department of surgery and a surgical outcomes fellow in the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

In an effort to evaluate the outcomes of patients with primary small cell cancer of the anus, the researchers reviewed their own institutional experience in treating nine patients with this condition between from 1994-2014, as well as National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) records of 174 patients from 1998-2014. The NCDB is maintained by collecting data prospectively from more than 1,500 facilities across the United States and is estimated to capture approximately 70% of all newly diagnosed cases of cancer annually. Institutional data allowed the researchers to identify details, including how these patients presented and what type of chemotherapy they received. However, analysis of a national database was necessary given the rarity of the diagnosis.

In the analysis of NCDB records, the mean patient age was 59 years and 74% were female. Most of the tumors (95%) were high grade and the majority of patients presented with advanced disease (50 with stage IV disease, 49 with stage III disease, 29 with stage II disease, 25 with stage I disease, and 21 with unknown stage). Overall survival was 66% at 12 months and 29% at 36 months. Among patients with stage I-III disease, survival was 72% at 12 months and 39% at 36 months.

Of the 103 patients with stage I-III disease, 95% received medical therapy, 70% underwent medical management alone, while 30% underwent surgery with curative intent. Patients who did not undergo surgery tended to have a higher stage of disease, compared with those who did (57% vs. 26%: P = .005). Overall survival at 36 months was similar between the two groups (33.9% in the surgery group vs. 35.8% in the no surgery group; P = .87).

“Unfortunately, it seems from our own experience and from national data that additional research is needed to determine how best to treat these patients and that surgery may not prolong survival in many of these patients,” Dr. Thiels said. “Although additional research is needed to optimize outcomes for these patients, harnessing the power of a national cancer database like the NCDB allows us to improve our understanding of these otherwise extremely rare, and difficult to study, tumors.”

Dr. Thiels reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – Some patients experienced improvement in at least one neurocognitive domain up to 3 years after having bariatric surgery, a small, systematic review has shown.

The most significant improvements were reported in memory, with nine studies showing some statistically significant improvement in a post-bariatric surgery cohort. Four studies showed statistically significant improvement in attention and executive function, and two did so in language.

Dr. Gurneet S. Thiara, a psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto, presented the findings during a scientific session at this year’s annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Because the studies that form the basis of the analysis did not follow a standard pre-surgery neurocognitive assessment, the actual scope of bariatric surgery’s impact on neurocognition is hard to determine. This shortcoming provides evidence that instituting a standardized method of psychiatric assessment pre-bariatric surgery could help clinicians better anticipate overall neurocognitive outcomes, he said.

“It’s hard to pinpoint the one domain that affects [this cohort] most,” said Dr. Thiara.

One study included in the analysis showed no neurocognitive improvement, although Dr. Thiara noted this was possibly due to the under- or non-reporting of negative outcomes by researchers who conducted studies that might have met his inclusion criteria.

Dr. Thiara and his colleagues were not able to draw conclusions as to which patients would be affected in which domains and by what mechanism of action. Their analysis did suggest possible relationships between gastric bypass and changes in metabolism, levels of leptin and ghrelin, vascular function, hypoperfusion in the brain, and even shifts in the gut microbiome.

Dr. Thiara sought studies with bariatric surgery patients whose neurocognitive and psychological outcomes were followed anywhere from one to three years post-surgery. After analyzing 422 studies published between January 1990 and August 2015, only ten studies, with patient sample sizes ranging from 10 to 156, met the criteria.

The study was not intended to determine a relationship between neurocognitive outcomes and type of bypass surgery performed, but Dr. Thiara said the majority of the procedures analyzed tended to be Roux-en-Y rather than the gastric bypass sleeve.

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

ATLANTA – Some patients experienced improvement in at least one neurocognitive domain up to 3 years after having bariatric surgery, a small, systematic review has shown.

The most significant improvements were reported in memory, with nine studies showing some statistically significant improvement in a post-bariatric surgery cohort. Four studies showed statistically significant improvement in attention and executive function, and two did so in language.

Dr. Gurneet S. Thiara, a psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto, presented the findings during a scientific session at this year’s annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Because the studies that form the basis of the analysis did not follow a standard pre-surgery neurocognitive assessment, the actual scope of bariatric surgery’s impact on neurocognition is hard to determine. This shortcoming provides evidence that instituting a standardized method of psychiatric assessment pre-bariatric surgery could help clinicians better anticipate overall neurocognitive outcomes, he said.

“It’s hard to pinpoint the one domain that affects [this cohort] most,” said Dr. Thiara.

One study included in the analysis showed no neurocognitive improvement, although Dr. Thiara noted this was possibly due to the under- or non-reporting of negative outcomes by researchers who conducted studies that might have met his inclusion criteria.

Dr. Thiara and his colleagues were not able to draw conclusions as to which patients would be affected in which domains and by what mechanism of action. Their analysis did suggest possible relationships between gastric bypass and changes in metabolism, levels of leptin and ghrelin, vascular function, hypoperfusion in the brain, and even shifts in the gut microbiome.

Dr. Thiara sought studies with bariatric surgery patients whose neurocognitive and psychological outcomes were followed anywhere from one to three years post-surgery. After analyzing 422 studies published between January 1990 and August 2015, only ten studies, with patient sample sizes ranging from 10 to 156, met the criteria.

The study was not intended to determine a relationship between neurocognitive outcomes and type of bypass surgery performed, but Dr. Thiara said the majority of the procedures analyzed tended to be Roux-en-Y rather than the gastric bypass sleeve.

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

ATLANTA – Some patients experienced improvement in at least one neurocognitive domain up to 3 years after having bariatric surgery, a small, systematic review has shown.

The most significant improvements were reported in memory, with nine studies showing some statistically significant improvement in a post-bariatric surgery cohort. Four studies showed statistically significant improvement in attention and executive function, and two did so in language.

Dr. Gurneet S. Thiara, a psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto, presented the findings during a scientific session at this year’s annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Because the studies that form the basis of the analysis did not follow a standard pre-surgery neurocognitive assessment, the actual scope of bariatric surgery’s impact on neurocognition is hard to determine. This shortcoming provides evidence that instituting a standardized method of psychiatric assessment pre-bariatric surgery could help clinicians better anticipate overall neurocognitive outcomes, he said.

“It’s hard to pinpoint the one domain that affects [this cohort] most,” said Dr. Thiara.

One study included in the analysis showed no neurocognitive improvement, although Dr. Thiara noted this was possibly due to the under- or non-reporting of negative outcomes by researchers who conducted studies that might have met his inclusion criteria.

Dr. Thiara and his colleagues were not able to draw conclusions as to which patients would be affected in which domains and by what mechanism of action. Their analysis did suggest possible relationships between gastric bypass and changes in metabolism, levels of leptin and ghrelin, vascular function, hypoperfusion in the brain, and even shifts in the gut microbiome.

Dr. Thiara sought studies with bariatric surgery patients whose neurocognitive and psychological outcomes were followed anywhere from one to three years post-surgery. After analyzing 422 studies published between January 1990 and August 2015, only ten studies, with patient sample sizes ranging from 10 to 156, met the criteria.

The study was not intended to determine a relationship between neurocognitive outcomes and type of bypass surgery performed, but Dr. Thiara said the majority of the procedures analyzed tended to be Roux-en-Y rather than the gastric bypass sleeve.

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

As MACRA makes quality-based care the law of the land, don’t just glide under the new expectations, thrive. That advice comes from accountable care experts who are seeing firsthand the tools leading to success in the new payment landscape.

Rule No. 1: Step up to the plate, said Julian D. “Bo” Bobbitt, a Raleigh, N.C.–based health law attorney and accountable care organization (ACO) specialist.

“MACRA changes everything,” he said in an interview. “This is massive. Indecision will not stop your placement in the value-based payment system. Why not control your destiny to achieve your professional and financial goals?”

On May 9, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published a proposed final rule that outlines key payment provisions of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). The proposal establishes parameters for the new Quality Payment Program, which includes the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs). Once final, the rule will consolidate three Medicare quality programs into MIPS: the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Value-Based Modifier Program; and the Meaningful Use program. CMS also proposes an APM pathway in which eligible clinicians can earn incentives.

The MACRA basics go as follows: From 2019 through 2024, well-performing physicians will be eligible for a bonus payment of up to 10% from a $500 million pool, according to CMS guidance released April 27. Poorly performing clinicians will see a pay cut of up to 4% in 2019, which increases to a max of 9% in 2022.

Taking small steps that focus on value now is key to excelling under MACRA, according to Jeb Dunkelberger, vice president for accountable care services at McKesson. “As an organization, ask: How can I get myself into a situation where I can maintain one foot on the boat and one foot on the dock, and be successful in the fee-for-service world, while starting to expose myself to fee-for-value?”

Starting a Medicare Shared Savings ACO is one way to accomplish this, Mr. Dunkelberger said in an interview. Track 1 of that program provides doctors with the potential for shared savings, while protecting them from financial risk. In his experience, practices have become successful after starting such ACOs, combined with a chronic care management initiative. Under this option, providers receive a fee-for-service payment, but they are also reaching out to patients and delivering preventive care, he said.

“You still have a traditional fee-for-service mechanism,” he said. “Your revenue cycle doesn’t change. Your coding doesn’t change. But at the same time, you’re simultaneously developing a competency that will be perceived as high-value in a futuristic world where we shift the location of care delivery and incentivize wellness and prevention more so than ever before.”

Joining an ACO sooner, rather than later, makes sense on many levels, Mr. Bobbitt added.

“Accountable care organizations seem to be an ideal vehicle to increase your value contribution and your reimbursement,” he said. “The law gives a 5% bump if you are in a qualifying ACO. There’s work involved and there’s infrastructure cost, but you can get into the plus side under MACRA and avoid the negative side, and you’re still open to the upside of the rewards for high performance.”

Transitioning early from volume to value has paid off for Dr. Grace E. Terrell and her large multispecialty group based in High Point, N.C. The group began adding components of value-based care in 2011 and is now part of an ACO with multiple payers and partners.

“We did this by changing the way we were providing care in specific care models and also investing substantially in information integration as well as changing our contracts so we were being paid based upon our outcomes, quality, and cost-effectiveness, rather than just fee-for-service,” said Dr. Terrell, the group’s president and CEO.

Since making the changes, the group has improved quality of care while reducing cost, said Dr. Terrell, who serves on the federal advisory committee for MACRA, officially known as the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee. Dr. Terrell said that her practice group had the sixth-highest quality score and the fourth-lowest cost among providers in the 2014 Medicare Shared Savings Program. The group has also launched a population health management company in collaboration with an academic medical center and a testing laboratory.

Maintaining a patient-focused viewpoint is essential to switching from volume to value, Dr. Terrell said. For example, her group focused on patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and teamed them with a respiratory therapist, particularly after hospitalizations. Their efforts reduced 30-day hospital readmissions from 12% to 6%. They also created clinics for patients who have five or more chronic conditions; physicians are linked with nurse navigators, social workers, and other professionals to offer a more holistic approach.

“All of these different models focused foremost on patients,” Dr. Terrell said. “They also focused on teamwork. Even though physicians were leading the team, it involved integrated medicine. It also involved integration across the spectrum of care so we had to work very carefully with our hospital partners.”

Collaboration is a critical piece to quality-based success, Mr. Dunkelberger said, but he advises taking the time and effort to find the right partners. Thoroughly vet potential partners, he said. Ask for case studies and overall impact of work. Be wary of flashy flowcharts and “too good to be true” promises.

“Look for a partner and not [necessarily] a vendor,” Mr. Dunkelberger said. “Make sure their incentives align with yours.”

Take stock of readiness to participate in alternative payment models, advised Edith Coakley Stowe, a health care attorney in Washington. The ability to meet electronic health record expectations, a category under MACRA now called Advancing Care Information, is extremely important, she said. Equally important – especially in primary care – are strategies for managing patients between visits. Decide whether your practice should build, buy, or enter into a joint venture to achieve these goals.

“The good news is that what gets tested in alternative payment models generally finds its way into policies and programs applicable across the Medicare program,” Ms. Stowe said in an interview. “That means that participants in alternative payment models get a head start. Despite the blind corners and complexity of options facing physician groups right now, having a mentality of testing, trying, and continuously evaluating is going to stand them in the best stead.”

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

As MACRA makes quality-based care the law of the land, don’t just glide under the new expectations, thrive. That advice comes from accountable care experts who are seeing firsthand the tools leading to success in the new payment landscape.

Rule No. 1: Step up to the plate, said Julian D. “Bo” Bobbitt, a Raleigh, N.C.–based health law attorney and accountable care organization (ACO) specialist.

“MACRA changes everything,” he said in an interview. “This is massive. Indecision will not stop your placement in the value-based payment system. Why not control your destiny to achieve your professional and financial goals?”

On May 9, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published a proposed final rule that outlines key payment provisions of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). The proposal establishes parameters for the new Quality Payment Program, which includes the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs). Once final, the rule will consolidate three Medicare quality programs into MIPS: the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Value-Based Modifier Program; and the Meaningful Use program. CMS also proposes an APM pathway in which eligible clinicians can earn incentives.

The MACRA basics go as follows: From 2019 through 2024, well-performing physicians will be eligible for a bonus payment of up to 10% from a $500 million pool, according to CMS guidance released April 27. Poorly performing clinicians will see a pay cut of up to 4% in 2019, which increases to a max of 9% in 2022.

Taking small steps that focus on value now is key to excelling under MACRA, according to Jeb Dunkelberger, vice president for accountable care services at McKesson. “As an organization, ask: How can I get myself into a situation where I can maintain one foot on the boat and one foot on the dock, and be successful in the fee-for-service world, while starting to expose myself to fee-for-value?”

Starting a Medicare Shared Savings ACO is one way to accomplish this, Mr. Dunkelberger said in an interview. Track 1 of that program provides doctors with the potential for shared savings, while protecting them from financial risk. In his experience, practices have become successful after starting such ACOs, combined with a chronic care management initiative. Under this option, providers receive a fee-for-service payment, but they are also reaching out to patients and delivering preventive care, he said.

“You still have a traditional fee-for-service mechanism,” he said. “Your revenue cycle doesn’t change. Your coding doesn’t change. But at the same time, you’re simultaneously developing a competency that will be perceived as high-value in a futuristic world where we shift the location of care delivery and incentivize wellness and prevention more so than ever before.”

Joining an ACO sooner, rather than later, makes sense on many levels, Mr. Bobbitt added.

“Accountable care organizations seem to be an ideal vehicle to increase your value contribution and your reimbursement,” he said. “The law gives a 5% bump if you are in a qualifying ACO. There’s work involved and there’s infrastructure cost, but you can get into the plus side under MACRA and avoid the negative side, and you’re still open to the upside of the rewards for high performance.”

Transitioning early from volume to value has paid off for Dr. Grace E. Terrell and her large multispecialty group based in High Point, N.C. The group began adding components of value-based care in 2011 and is now part of an ACO with multiple payers and partners.

“We did this by changing the way we were providing care in specific care models and also investing substantially in information integration as well as changing our contracts so we were being paid based upon our outcomes, quality, and cost-effectiveness, rather than just fee-for-service,” said Dr. Terrell, the group’s president and CEO.

Since making the changes, the group has improved quality of care while reducing cost, said Dr. Terrell, who serves on the federal advisory committee for MACRA, officially known as the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee. Dr. Terrell said that her practice group had the sixth-highest quality score and the fourth-lowest cost among providers in the 2014 Medicare Shared Savings Program. The group has also launched a population health management company in collaboration with an academic medical center and a testing laboratory.

Maintaining a patient-focused viewpoint is essential to switching from volume to value, Dr. Terrell said. For example, her group focused on patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and teamed them with a respiratory therapist, particularly after hospitalizations. Their efforts reduced 30-day hospital readmissions from 12% to 6%. They also created clinics for patients who have five or more chronic conditions; physicians are linked with nurse navigators, social workers, and other professionals to offer a more holistic approach.

“All of these different models focused foremost on patients,” Dr. Terrell said. “They also focused on teamwork. Even though physicians were leading the team, it involved integrated medicine. It also involved integration across the spectrum of care so we had to work very carefully with our hospital partners.”

Collaboration is a critical piece to quality-based success, Mr. Dunkelberger said, but he advises taking the time and effort to find the right partners. Thoroughly vet potential partners, he said. Ask for case studies and overall impact of work. Be wary of flashy flowcharts and “too good to be true” promises.

“Look for a partner and not [necessarily] a vendor,” Mr. Dunkelberger said. “Make sure their incentives align with yours.”

Take stock of readiness to participate in alternative payment models, advised Edith Coakley Stowe, a health care attorney in Washington. The ability to meet electronic health record expectations, a category under MACRA now called Advancing Care Information, is extremely important, she said. Equally important – especially in primary care – are strategies for managing patients between visits. Decide whether your practice should build, buy, or enter into a joint venture to achieve these goals.

“The good news is that what gets tested in alternative payment models generally finds its way into policies and programs applicable across the Medicare program,” Ms. Stowe said in an interview. “That means that participants in alternative payment models get a head start. Despite the blind corners and complexity of options facing physician groups right now, having a mentality of testing, trying, and continuously evaluating is going to stand them in the best stead.”

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

As MACRA makes quality-based care the law of the land, don’t just glide under the new expectations, thrive. That advice comes from accountable care experts who are seeing firsthand the tools leading to success in the new payment landscape.

Rule No. 1: Step up to the plate, said Julian D. “Bo” Bobbitt, a Raleigh, N.C.–based health law attorney and accountable care organization (ACO) specialist.

“MACRA changes everything,” he said in an interview. “This is massive. Indecision will not stop your placement in the value-based payment system. Why not control your destiny to achieve your professional and financial goals?”

On May 9, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published a proposed final rule that outlines key payment provisions of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). The proposal establishes parameters for the new Quality Payment Program, which includes the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs). Once final, the rule will consolidate three Medicare quality programs into MIPS: the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Value-Based Modifier Program; and the Meaningful Use program. CMS also proposes an APM pathway in which eligible clinicians can earn incentives.

The MACRA basics go as follows: From 2019 through 2024, well-performing physicians will be eligible for a bonus payment of up to 10% from a $500 million pool, according to CMS guidance released April 27. Poorly performing clinicians will see a pay cut of up to 4% in 2019, which increases to a max of 9% in 2022.

Taking small steps that focus on value now is key to excelling under MACRA, according to Jeb Dunkelberger, vice president for accountable care services at McKesson. “As an organization, ask: How can I get myself into a situation where I can maintain one foot on the boat and one foot on the dock, and be successful in the fee-for-service world, while starting to expose myself to fee-for-value?”

Starting a Medicare Shared Savings ACO is one way to accomplish this, Mr. Dunkelberger said in an interview. Track 1 of that program provides doctors with the potential for shared savings, while protecting them from financial risk. In his experience, practices have become successful after starting such ACOs, combined with a chronic care management initiative. Under this option, providers receive a fee-for-service payment, but they are also reaching out to patients and delivering preventive care, he said.

“You still have a traditional fee-for-service mechanism,” he said. “Your revenue cycle doesn’t change. Your coding doesn’t change. But at the same time, you’re simultaneously developing a competency that will be perceived as high-value in a futuristic world where we shift the location of care delivery and incentivize wellness and prevention more so than ever before.”

Joining an ACO sooner, rather than later, makes sense on many levels, Mr. Bobbitt added.

“Accountable care organizations seem to be an ideal vehicle to increase your value contribution and your reimbursement,” he said. “The law gives a 5% bump if you are in a qualifying ACO. There’s work involved and there’s infrastructure cost, but you can get into the plus side under MACRA and avoid the negative side, and you’re still open to the upside of the rewards for high performance.”

Transitioning early from volume to value has paid off for Dr. Grace E. Terrell and her large multispecialty group based in High Point, N.C. The group began adding components of value-based care in 2011 and is now part of an ACO with multiple payers and partners.

“We did this by changing the way we were providing care in specific care models and also investing substantially in information integration as well as changing our contracts so we were being paid based upon our outcomes, quality, and cost-effectiveness, rather than just fee-for-service,” said Dr. Terrell, the group’s president and CEO.

Since making the changes, the group has improved quality of care while reducing cost, said Dr. Terrell, who serves on the federal advisory committee for MACRA, officially known as the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee. Dr. Terrell said that her practice group had the sixth-highest quality score and the fourth-lowest cost among providers in the 2014 Medicare Shared Savings Program. The group has also launched a population health management company in collaboration with an academic medical center and a testing laboratory.

Maintaining a patient-focused viewpoint is essential to switching from volume to value, Dr. Terrell said. For example, her group focused on patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and teamed them with a respiratory therapist, particularly after hospitalizations. Their efforts reduced 30-day hospital readmissions from 12% to 6%. They also created clinics for patients who have five or more chronic conditions; physicians are linked with nurse navigators, social workers, and other professionals to offer a more holistic approach.

“All of these different models focused foremost on patients,” Dr. Terrell said. “They also focused on teamwork. Even though physicians were leading the team, it involved integrated medicine. It also involved integration across the spectrum of care so we had to work very carefully with our hospital partners.”

Collaboration is a critical piece to quality-based success, Mr. Dunkelberger said, but he advises taking the time and effort to find the right partners. Thoroughly vet potential partners, he said. Ask for case studies and overall impact of work. Be wary of flashy flowcharts and “too good to be true” promises.

“Look for a partner and not [necessarily] a vendor,” Mr. Dunkelberger said. “Make sure their incentives align with yours.”

Take stock of readiness to participate in alternative payment models, advised Edith Coakley Stowe, a health care attorney in Washington. The ability to meet electronic health record expectations, a category under MACRA now called Advancing Care Information, is extremely important, she said. Equally important – especially in primary care – are strategies for managing patients between visits. Decide whether your practice should build, buy, or enter into a joint venture to achieve these goals.

“The good news is that what gets tested in alternative payment models generally finds its way into policies and programs applicable across the Medicare program,” Ms. Stowe said in an interview. “That means that participants in alternative payment models get a head start. Despite the blind corners and complexity of options facing physician groups right now, having a mentality of testing, trying, and continuously evaluating is going to stand them in the best stead.”

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

For pretreatment staging of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) the use of positron-emission tomography combined with CT was more sensitive compared with several other tests, according to a new report on a review of studies.

Overall, positron emission tomography using [F]-fluorodeoxyglucose as a radiotracer combined with CT (FDG-PET/CT) had greater sensitivity to detect osseous metastases than did bone scintigraphy or CT alone, according to Dr. Jonathan R. Treadwell, Ph.D., of ECRI Institute–Penn Medicine’s Evidence-based Practice Center in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., and colleagues. In addition, the researchers concluded that adding FDG-PET/CT to the protocol for patients who have undergone standard staging increased the sensitivity for detecting additional metastases. Data on endobronchial ultrasound were insufficient to draw any conclusions.

The findings generally line up with recent guidelines from the American College of Radiology (ACR) and American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). In 2014, the ACR gave the highest rating of “usually appropriate” (with regard to staging SCLC) to FDG-PET/CT from skull base to mid-thigh, while bone scintigraphy was rated as “may be appropriate” and not necessary if PET/CT had been done, the researchers wrote. The 2013 ACCP guideline “suggested” FDG PET instead of bone scintigraphy for patients with limited disease, they added.

The researchers reviewed data from seven studies to assess the accuracy and effectiveness of several imaging modalities for the pretreatment staging of SCLC. The report was generated for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) as part of its Comparative Effectiveness Review series, and is not an official AHRQ position, the researchers noted.

Combining FDG-PET with CT scanning has demonstrated even greater effectiveness at identifying malignant tumors and metabolically active metastases than has PET alone, because the CT allows for more localized anatomic detail, the researchers explained. “False negative scans usually result from non–metabolically active sites of tumor or from suboptimal quality studies,” they said, while false positives using FDG-PET are usually attributed to inflammation or metabolically active infection.

The meta-analysis included data on endobronchial ultrasound, which involves ultrasound to view structures inside and adjacent to the airway; bone scintigraphy, a less expensive planar molecular imaging technique; and CT alone.

Comparative evidence on pretreatment staging for SCLC is limited, according to the researchers. The data did not allow them to determine how FDG-PET/CT compared to other imaging in terms of specificity, and any type of imaging can yield false positives, they said. However, higher sensitivity alone can benefit patients in terms of improving patient selection for optimal therapy, sparing patients chemotherapy if not needed, and improving the prediction value of ongoing research, they noted.

“Although high-quality evidence may not be voluminous, I think most physicians would agree with the conclusion that a bone scan is not mandatory in the work-up of possible SCLC, if a PET/CT has been done,” Dr. W. Michael Alberts of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., said in an interview.  

Cost might play a role in why the guidelines are being issued at this time, he noted, because “the initial work-up of the patient with suspected SCLC may prove to be quite expensive, and the elimination of a superfluous test may be a fiscal winner.” However, more research is needed in this area, particularly in the areas of including the order of pretreatment testing and the incorporation of new procedures and imaging modalities, he added. “Perhaps more intellectually challenging, however, might be the question of why SCLC is becoming less common, or why has improvement in treatment been so slow compared to NSCLC,” he added.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

For pretreatment staging of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) the use of positron-emission tomography combined with CT was more sensitive compared with several other tests, according to a new report on a review of studies.

Overall, positron emission tomography using [F]-fluorodeoxyglucose as a radiotracer combined with CT (FDG-PET/CT) had greater sensitivity to detect osseous metastases than did bone scintigraphy or CT alone, according to Dr. Jonathan R. Treadwell, Ph.D., of ECRI Institute–Penn Medicine’s Evidence-based Practice Center in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., and colleagues. In addition, the researchers concluded that adding FDG-PET/CT to the protocol for patients who have undergone standard staging increased the sensitivity for detecting additional metastases. Data on endobronchial ultrasound were insufficient to draw any conclusions.

The findings generally line up with recent guidelines from the American College of Radiology (ACR) and American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). In 2014, the ACR gave the highest rating of “usually appropriate” (with regard to staging SCLC) to FDG-PET/CT from skull base to mid-thigh, while bone scintigraphy was rated as “may be appropriate” and not necessary if PET/CT had been done, the researchers wrote. The 2013 ACCP guideline “suggested” FDG PET instead of bone scintigraphy for patients with limited disease, they added.

The researchers reviewed data from seven studies to assess the accuracy and effectiveness of several imaging modalities for the pretreatment staging of SCLC. The report was generated for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) as part of its Comparative Effectiveness Review series, and is not an official AHRQ position, the researchers noted.

Combining FDG-PET with CT scanning has demonstrated even greater effectiveness at identifying malignant tumors and metabolically active metastases than has PET alone, because the CT allows for more localized anatomic detail, the researchers explained. “False negative scans usually result from non–metabolically active sites of tumor or from suboptimal quality studies,” they said, while false positives using FDG-PET are usually attributed to inflammation or metabolically active infection.

The meta-analysis included data on endobronchial ultrasound, which involves ultrasound to view structures inside and adjacent to the airway; bone scintigraphy, a less expensive planar molecular imaging technique; and CT alone.

Comparative evidence on pretreatment staging for SCLC is limited, according to the researchers. The data did not allow them to determine how FDG-PET/CT compared to other imaging in terms of specificity, and any type of imaging can yield false positives, they said. However, higher sensitivity alone can benefit patients in terms of improving patient selection for optimal therapy, sparing patients chemotherapy if not needed, and improving the prediction value of ongoing research, they noted.

“Although high-quality evidence may not be voluminous, I think most physicians would agree with the conclusion that a bone scan is not mandatory in the work-up of possible SCLC, if a PET/CT has been done,” Dr. W. Michael Alberts of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., said in an interview.  

Cost might play a role in why the guidelines are being issued at this time, he noted, because “the initial work-up of the patient with suspected SCLC may prove to be quite expensive, and the elimination of a superfluous test may be a fiscal winner.” However, more research is needed in this area, particularly in the areas of including the order of pretreatment testing and the incorporation of new procedures and imaging modalities, he added. “Perhaps more intellectually challenging, however, might be the question of why SCLC is becoming less common, or why has improvement in treatment been so slow compared to NSCLC,” he added.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

For pretreatment staging of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) the use of positron-emission tomography combined with CT was more sensitive compared with several other tests, according to a new report on a review of studies.

Overall, positron emission tomography using [F]-fluorodeoxyglucose as a radiotracer combined with CT (FDG-PET/CT) had greater sensitivity to detect osseous metastases than did bone scintigraphy or CT alone, according to Dr. Jonathan R. Treadwell, Ph.D., of ECRI Institute–Penn Medicine’s Evidence-based Practice Center in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., and colleagues. In addition, the researchers concluded that adding FDG-PET/CT to the protocol for patients who have undergone standard staging increased the sensitivity for detecting additional metastases. Data on endobronchial ultrasound were insufficient to draw any conclusions.

The findings generally line up with recent guidelines from the American College of Radiology (ACR) and American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). In 2014, the ACR gave the highest rating of “usually appropriate” (with regard to staging SCLC) to FDG-PET/CT from skull base to mid-thigh, while bone scintigraphy was rated as “may be appropriate” and not necessary if PET/CT had been done, the researchers wrote. The 2013 ACCP guideline “suggested” FDG PET instead of bone scintigraphy for patients with limited disease, they added.

The researchers reviewed data from seven studies to assess the accuracy and effectiveness of several imaging modalities for the pretreatment staging of SCLC. The report was generated for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) as part of its Comparative Effectiveness Review series, and is not an official AHRQ position, the researchers noted.

Combining FDG-PET with CT scanning has demonstrated even greater effectiveness at identifying malignant tumors and metabolically active metastases than has PET alone, because the CT allows for more localized anatomic detail, the researchers explained. “False negative scans usually result from non–metabolically active sites of tumor or from suboptimal quality studies,” they said, while false positives using FDG-PET are usually attributed to inflammation or metabolically active infection.

The meta-analysis included data on endobronchial ultrasound, which involves ultrasound to view structures inside and adjacent to the airway; bone scintigraphy, a less expensive planar molecular imaging technique; and CT alone.

Comparative evidence on pretreatment staging for SCLC is limited, according to the researchers. The data did not allow them to determine how FDG-PET/CT compared to other imaging in terms of specificity, and any type of imaging can yield false positives, they said. However, higher sensitivity alone can benefit patients in terms of improving patient selection for optimal therapy, sparing patients chemotherapy if not needed, and improving the prediction value of ongoing research, they noted.

“Although high-quality evidence may not be voluminous, I think most physicians would agree with the conclusion that a bone scan is not mandatory in the work-up of possible SCLC, if a PET/CT has been done,” Dr. W. Michael Alberts of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., said in an interview.  

Cost might play a role in why the guidelines are being issued at this time, he noted, because “the initial work-up of the patient with suspected SCLC may prove to be quite expensive, and the elimination of a superfluous test may be a fiscal winner.” However, more research is needed in this area, particularly in the areas of including the order of pretreatment testing and the incorporation of new procedures and imaging modalities, he added. “Perhaps more intellectually challenging, however, might be the question of why SCLC is becoming less common, or why has improvement in treatment been so slow compared to NSCLC,” he added.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Growing up, Denisse Rojas Marquez rarely visited the doctor. As undocumented immigrants from Mexico, her family viewed medical care as a luxury and sought it only in emergencies.

“I would always wait until it was very severe to see a doctor,” said Ms. Rojas Marquez, who came to the United States as a toddler. “That’s still a mentality I have to train myself out of. Growing up, going to the doctor meant very expensive bills and navigating through very complex systems.”

At 26, Ms. Rojas Marquez is determined to become a physician and help bridge the gap between undocumented immigrants and medical care. She is close to making that dream a reality because of a 2012 policy called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which protects undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children from deportation and offers access to work authorization. The policy enabled Ms. Rojas Marquez to become one of the first undocumented students to attend the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

Photo provided by Denisse Rojas

But the fate of Ms. Rojas Marquez’s medical education is in flux as the U.S. Supreme Court considers protections for undocumented immigrants in the case of Texas v. United States. In dispute is the constitutionality of two of President Obama’s immigration policies: the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded DACA. The former protects undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens from deportation, if they meet certain criteria. The second extends work authorization under the original DACA program from 2 years to 3 years and broadens age requirements.

Texas and 25 other states have sued over the programs, arguing the president does not have the authority to issue the new immigration policies, and that the programs violate the Constitution as well as the Administrative Procedure Act for notice-and-comment rule making. High court justices heard oral arguments April 18.

The ruling could impact the growing number of medical students with DACA status across the country, and jeopardize the funding invested in their training. Sixty-one medical schools now accept applications from DACA applicants, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). In 2015, 46 students with DACA status applied to U.S. medical schools and 20 were enrolled. In 2016, more than double (112) applied, although enrollment data will not be available until year’s end. Neither AAMC nor the National Resident Matching Program collect data on residents with DACA status.

A high court ruling in favor of the states could lead to DACA’s undoing, said Michael M. Hethmon, an attorney for the Immigration Reform Law Institute in Washington, D.C. The institute issued a brief to the Supreme Court in support of Texas.

If Texas prevails, “it’ll be a matter of weeks before a similar challenge will be levied against DACA and a number of other related programs,” Mr. Hethmon said in an interview. “There will be no more legal justification for those programs that exist.”

Saving talent or wasting money?

Loyola University in Chicago has accepted more students with DACA status than any other U.S. medical school. The reasons are simple, said Mark Kuczewski, Ph.D., chair of medical education at Loyola’s Stritch School of Medicine.

“We’re in the business of taking outstanding students,” Dr. Kuczewski said in an interview. “If the student is outstanding, we want them in our applicant pool. Second, being bilingual and bicultural is extremely important. We have patient populations out there that are diverse and underserved. We want to utilize this talent.”

In the fall of 2014, Stritch enrolled seven medical students with DACA status; in 2014, they doubled that enrollment. The students competed on the same playing field as other applicants and received no special treatment, Dr. Kuczewski said.

DACA students do pose funding challenges, he acknowledged. Although the students are protected from deportation and receive work authorization, they don’t qualify for federal student loans. Medical schools must find unique ways to help DACA students finance their education. A major Catholic health system provides student loan packages for several DACA students at Stritch, Dr. Kuczewski said. DACA students can also apply for financial assistance through an AAMC assistance program.

Abhinav Janghala

“Medical students use copious amounts of federal student loans,” he said. “Somehow the school has to make up that difference. We’ve found partners, but they don’t have infinite capacity, so we have to keep going back and finding new partners each year.”

The University of California, San Francisco, also has opened its doors to DACA students. Now in his third year, Jirayut New Latthivongskorn is UCSF’s first undocumented medical student. His education is financed by grants, private funding, and donations, said Mr. Latthivongskorn who came to the United States from Thailand when he was 9 years old. He is cofounder of Pre-Health Dreamers, a network of undocumented students who plan to pursue medical careers.

Before DACA granted his entry into UCSF, Mr. Latthivongskorn was accustomed to barriers because of his undocumented status, including having to turn down a nearly full-ride scholarship from the University of California, Davis, after high school.

“It was devastating,” Mr. Latthivongskorn said in an interview. “It was one of the very first times where I felt different and thought, ‘This is not going to work. You are undocumented.’”

Mr. Latthivongskorn and his family scraped together money for him to complete his undergraduate degree at the University of California, Berkeley. California has since passed the DREAM Act, a law that allows undocumented immigrants to receive private scholarships funded through public universities.

Not everyone believes undocumented immigrants should get the chance to become U.S. physicians. Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, argued that undocumented immigrants are not the answer to curbing the physician shortage.

“In a country that’s supposed to be ruled by law, it seems incomprehensible that people who are violating the law should be given privileges over people who are here legally,” she said in an interview. “We desperately do need more physicians, but we should not be blocking Americans from having this opportunity.”

Dr. Shirie Leng, a Boston anesthesiologist, said DACA is promising in theory, but falls short in practical application.

“There’s no particular reason why [undocumented students] wouldn’t make great doctors,” said Dr. Leng. “The problem is funding related. You can give kids all the opportunity you want, but if you can’t pay for it, that seems to me to be the biggest sticking point.”

Basing admission policies on programs that are vulnerable could end poorly for schools and students, Dr. Leng added.

If DACA is revoked, “it’s not just a waste of money for the school, but a waste of time for the kids,” she said.

Protections hinge on Supreme Court … and next president

During oral arguments earlier this month, justices appeared to disagree on whether DAPA and expanded DACA were properly executed.

Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy indicated that the normal order of government policy making had been “turned upside down,” by the creation of the programs. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, meanwhile, noted that immigration policies with broader reaches have been similarly instituted in the past.

A ruling for the government would mean the president can use his executive power to enact policies that run contrary to immigration laws already in place, said Mr. Hethmon, the D.C. attorney. Current immigration laws trump informal agency discretion and do not allow for the government’s “arbitrary and capricious creation of a massive classification of nonstatus alien beneficiaries,” Mr. Hethmon wrote in his high court brief.

A decision that favors Texas would unravel opportunities for undocumented immigrants and prevent their ability to contribute to society, said Ignacia Rodriguez, a legal fellow at the National Immigration Law Center, which authored a brief in support of the government.

“What’s at stake is providing a stable environment for U.S. citizen children to grow, and providing people with the opportunity and tools to be able to contribute to the workforce [and] to the economy,” she said in an interview. “This is a payoff for everybody, not just those receiving the benefit.”

Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, the next president could have the last word, according Ashley C. Parrish, a Washington D.C. attorney who cowrote a brief in support of the states. Mr. Parrish takes no position on the merits of the immigration programs, but rather, he is concerned with the administration’s failure to follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements for notice-and-comment rule making.

“If the program were adopted as a legal rule after notice and comment, it could not be changed without going through a new notice-and-comment process,” he said. “If it is just a bare statement of policy, it can be changed at any time, without notice to anyone. The next administration could say, ‘Thank you for coming out of the shadows; we are now going to deport all of you.’ ”

Among the Democrats running for president, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said she will defend DACA and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has said he supports DACA and DAPA, and plans to expand them if elected.

Conversely, presumed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has indicated he would rescind DACA and related programs if elected.

After spending most of her life terrified of deportation, Ms. Rojas Marquez said she is not wasting time worrying about the Supreme Court’s decision or whether the next president will overturn the policy. She is keeping her studies foremost in her mind and the goal of becoming a doctor firmly in her heart.

“I have always lived with what-ifs,” she said. “This time around, I’m not going to be living in fear of the removing of DACA, because I wouldn’t have made it this far if I always lived in fear. My plan is no matter what happens, I’m going to finish medical school, and from there, I pray that I will be able to practice in the U.S.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by June.

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

Growing up, Denisse Rojas Marquez rarely visited the doctor. As undocumented immigrants from Mexico, her family viewed medical care as a luxury and sought it only in emergencies.

“I would always wait until it was very severe to see a doctor,” said Ms. Rojas Marquez, who came to the United States as a toddler. “That’s still a mentality I have to train myself out of. Growing up, going to the doctor meant very expensive bills and navigating through very complex systems.”

At 26, Ms. Rojas Marquez is determined to become a physician and help bridge the gap between undocumented immigrants and medical care. She is close to making that dream a reality because of a 2012 policy called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which protects undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children from deportation and offers access to work authorization. The policy enabled Ms. Rojas Marquez to become one of the first undocumented students to attend the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

Photo provided by Denisse Rojas

But the fate of Ms. Rojas Marquez’s medical education is in flux as the U.S. Supreme Court considers protections for undocumented immigrants in the case of Texas v. United States. In dispute is the constitutionality of two of President Obama’s immigration policies: the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded DACA. The former protects undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens from deportation, if they meet certain criteria. The second extends work authorization under the original DACA program from 2 years to 3 years and broadens age requirements.

Texas and 25 other states have sued over the programs, arguing the president does not have the authority to issue the new immigration policies, and that the programs violate the Constitution as well as the Administrative Procedure Act for notice-and-comment rule making. High court justices heard oral arguments April 18.

The ruling could impact the growing number of medical students with DACA status across the country, and jeopardize the funding invested in their training. Sixty-one medical schools now accept applications from DACA applicants, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). In 2015, 46 students with DACA status applied to U.S. medical schools and 20 were enrolled. In 2016, more than double (112) applied, although enrollment data will not be available until year’s end. Neither AAMC nor the National Resident Matching Program collect data on residents with DACA status.

A high court ruling in favor of the states could lead to DACA’s undoing, said Michael M. Hethmon, an attorney for the Immigration Reform Law Institute in Washington, D.C. The institute issued a brief to the Supreme Court in support of Texas.

If Texas prevails, “it’ll be a matter of weeks before a similar challenge will be levied against DACA and a number of other related programs,” Mr. Hethmon said in an interview. “There will be no more legal justification for those programs that exist.”

Saving talent or wasting money?

Loyola University in Chicago has accepted more students with DACA status than any other U.S. medical school. The reasons are simple, said Mark Kuczewski, Ph.D., chair of medical education at Loyola’s Stritch School of Medicine.

“We’re in the business of taking outstanding students,” Dr. Kuczewski said in an interview. “If the student is outstanding, we want them in our applicant pool. Second, being bilingual and bicultural is extremely important. We have patient populations out there that are diverse and underserved. We want to utilize this talent.”

In the fall of 2014, Stritch enrolled seven medical students with DACA status; in 2014, they doubled that enrollment. The students competed on the same playing field as other applicants and received no special treatment, Dr. Kuczewski said.

DACA students do pose funding challenges, he acknowledged. Although the students are protected from deportation and receive work authorization, they don’t qualify for federal student loans. Medical schools must find unique ways to help DACA students finance their education. A major Catholic health system provides student loan packages for several DACA students at Stritch, Dr. Kuczewski said. DACA students can also apply for financial assistance through an AAMC assistance program.

Abhinav Janghala

“Medical students use copious amounts of federal student loans,” he said. “Somehow the school has to make up that difference. We’ve found partners, but they don’t have infinite capacity, so we have to keep going back and finding new partners each year.”

The University of California, San Francisco, also has opened its doors to DACA students. Now in his third year, Jirayut New Latthivongskorn is UCSF’s first undocumented medical student. His education is financed by grants, private funding, and donations, said Mr. Latthivongskorn who came to the United States from Thailand when he was 9 years old. He is cofounder of Pre-Health Dreamers, a network of undocumented students who plan to pursue medical careers.

Before DACA granted his entry into UCSF, Mr. Latthivongskorn was accustomed to barriers because of his undocumented status, including having to turn down a nearly full-ride scholarship from the University of California, Davis, after high school.

“It was devastating,” Mr. Latthivongskorn said in an interview. “It was one of the very first times where I felt different and thought, ‘This is not going to work. You are undocumented.’”

Mr. Latthivongskorn and his family scraped together money for him to complete his undergraduate degree at the University of California, Berkeley. California has since passed the DREAM Act, a law that allows undocumented immigrants to receive private scholarships funded through public universities.

Not everyone believes undocumented immigrants should get the chance to become U.S. physicians. Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, argued that undocumented immigrants are not the answer to curbing the physician shortage.

“In a country that’s supposed to be ruled by law, it seems incomprehensible that people who are violating the law should be given privileges over people who are here legally,” she said in an interview. “We desperately do need more physicians, but we should not be blocking Americans from having this opportunity.”

Dr. Shirie Leng, a Boston anesthesiologist, said DACA is promising in theory, but falls short in practical application.

“There’s no particular reason why [undocumented students] wouldn’t make great doctors,” said Dr. Leng. “The problem is funding related. You can give kids all the opportunity you want, but if you can’t pay for it, that seems to me to be the biggest sticking point.”

Basing admission policies on programs that are vulnerable could end poorly for schools and students, Dr. Leng added.

If DACA is revoked, “it’s not just a waste of money for the school, but a waste of time for the kids,” she said.

Protections hinge on Supreme Court … and next president

During oral arguments earlier this month, justices appeared to disagree on whether DAPA and expanded DACA were properly executed.

Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy indicated that the normal order of government policy making had been “turned upside down,” by the creation of the programs. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, meanwhile, noted that immigration policies with broader reaches have been similarly instituted in the past.

A ruling for the government would mean the president can use his executive power to enact policies that run contrary to immigration laws already in place, said Mr. Hethmon, the D.C. attorney. Current immigration laws trump informal agency discretion and do not allow for the government’s “arbitrary and capricious creation of a massive classification of nonstatus alien beneficiaries,” Mr. Hethmon wrote in his high court brief.

A decision that favors Texas would unravel opportunities for undocumented immigrants and prevent their ability to contribute to society, said Ignacia Rodriguez, a legal fellow at the National Immigration Law Center, which authored a brief in support of the government.

“What’s at stake is providing a stable environment for U.S. citizen children to grow, and providing people with the opportunity and tools to be able to contribute to the workforce [and] to the economy,” she said in an interview. “This is a payoff for everybody, not just those receiving the benefit.”

Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, the next president could have the last word, according Ashley C. Parrish, a Washington D.C. attorney who cowrote a brief in support of the states. Mr. Parrish takes no position on the merits of the immigration programs, but rather, he is concerned with the administration’s failure to follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements for notice-and-comment rule making.

“If the program were adopted as a legal rule after notice and comment, it could not be changed without going through a new notice-and-comment process,” he said. “If it is just a bare statement of policy, it can be changed at any time, without notice to anyone. The next administration could say, ‘Thank you for coming out of the shadows; we are now going to deport all of you.’ ”

Among the Democrats running for president, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said she will defend DACA and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has said he supports DACA and DAPA, and plans to expand them if elected.

Conversely, presumed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has indicated he would rescind DACA and related programs if elected.

After spending most of her life terrified of deportation, Ms. Rojas Marquez said she is not wasting time worrying about the Supreme Court’s decision or whether the next president will overturn the policy. She is keeping her studies foremost in her mind and the goal of becoming a doctor firmly in her heart.

“I have always lived with what-ifs,” she said. “This time around, I’m not going to be living in fear of the removing of DACA, because I wouldn’t have made it this far if I always lived in fear. My plan is no matter what happens, I’m going to finish medical school, and from there, I pray that I will be able to practice in the U.S.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by June.

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

Growing up, Denisse Rojas Marquez rarely visited the doctor. As undocumented immigrants from Mexico, her family viewed medical care as a luxury and sought it only in emergencies.

“I would always wait until it was very severe to see a doctor,” said Ms. Rojas Marquez, who came to the United States as a toddler. “That’s still a mentality I have to train myself out of. Growing up, going to the doctor meant very expensive bills and navigating through very complex systems.”

At 26, Ms. Rojas Marquez is determined to become a physician and help bridge the gap between undocumented immigrants and medical care. She is close to making that dream a reality because of a 2012 policy called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which protects undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children from deportation and offers access to work authorization. The policy enabled Ms. Rojas Marquez to become one of the first undocumented students to attend the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

Photo provided by Denisse Rojas

But the fate of Ms. Rojas Marquez’s medical education is in flux as the U.S. Supreme Court considers protections for undocumented immigrants in the case of Texas v. United States. In dispute is the constitutionality of two of President Obama’s immigration policies: the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded DACA. The former protects undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens from deportation, if they meet certain criteria. The second extends work authorization under the original DACA program from 2 years to 3 years and broadens age requirements.

Texas and 25 other states have sued over the programs, arguing the president does not have the authority to issue the new immigration policies, and that the programs violate the Constitution as well as the Administrative Procedure Act for notice-and-comment rule making. High court justices heard oral arguments April 18.

The ruling could impact the growing number of medical students with DACA status across the country, and jeopardize the funding invested in their training. Sixty-one medical schools now accept applications from DACA applicants, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). In 2015, 46 students with DACA status applied to U.S. medical schools and 20 were enrolled. In 2016, more than double (112) applied, although enrollment data will not be available until year’s end. Neither AAMC nor the National Resident Matching Program collect data on residents with DACA status.

A high court ruling in favor of the states could lead to DACA’s undoing, said Michael M. Hethmon, an attorney for the Immigration Reform Law Institute in Washington, D.C. The institute issued a brief to the Supreme Court in support of Texas.

If Texas prevails, “it’ll be a matter of weeks before a similar challenge will be levied against DACA and a number of other related programs,” Mr. Hethmon said in an interview. “There will be no more legal justification for those programs that exist.”

Saving talent or wasting money?

Loyola University in Chicago has accepted more students with DACA status than any other U.S. medical school. The reasons are simple, said Mark Kuczewski, Ph.D., chair of medical education at Loyola’s Stritch School of Medicine.

“We’re in the business of taking outstanding students,” Dr. Kuczewski said in an interview. “If the student is outstanding, we want them in our applicant pool. Second, being bilingual and bicultural is extremely important. We have patient populations out there that are diverse and underserved. We want to utilize this talent.”

In the fall of 2014, Stritch enrolled seven medical students with DACA status; in 2014, they doubled that enrollment. The students competed on the same playing field as other applicants and received no special treatment, Dr. Kuczewski said.

DACA students do pose funding challenges, he acknowledged. Although the students are protected from deportation and receive work authorization, they don’t qualify for federal student loans. Medical schools must find unique ways to help DACA students finance their education. A major Catholic health system provides student loan packages for several DACA students at Stritch, Dr. Kuczewski said. DACA students can also apply for financial assistance through an AAMC assistance program.

Abhinav Janghala

“Medical students use copious amounts of federal student loans,” he said. “Somehow the school has to make up that difference. We’ve found partners, but they don’t have infinite capacity, so we have to keep going back and finding new partners each year.”

The University of California, San Francisco, also has opened its doors to DACA students. Now in his third year, Jirayut New Latthivongskorn is UCSF’s first undocumented medical student. His education is financed by grants, private funding, and donations, said Mr. Latthivongskorn who came to the United States from Thailand when he was 9 years old. He is cofounder of Pre-Health Dreamers, a network of undocumented students who plan to pursue medical careers.

Before DACA granted his entry into UCSF, Mr. Latthivongskorn was accustomed to barriers because of his undocumented status, including having to turn down a nearly full-ride scholarship from the University of California, Davis, after high school.

“It was devastating,” Mr. Latthivongskorn said in an interview. “It was one of the very first times where I felt different and thought, ‘This is not going to work. You are undocumented.’”

Mr. Latthivongskorn and his family scraped together money for him to complete his undergraduate degree at the University of California, Berkeley. California has since passed the DREAM Act, a law that allows undocumented immigrants to receive private scholarships funded through public universities.

Not everyone believes undocumented immigrants should get the chance to become U.S. physicians. Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, argued that undocumented immigrants are not the answer to curbing the physician shortage.

“In a country that’s supposed to be ruled by law, it seems incomprehensible that people who are violating the law should be given privileges over people who are here legally,” she said in an interview. “We desperately do need more physicians, but we should not be blocking Americans from having this opportunity.”

Dr. Shirie Leng, a Boston anesthesiologist, said DACA is promising in theory, but falls short in practical application.

“There’s no particular reason why [undocumented students] wouldn’t make great doctors,” said Dr. Leng. “The problem is funding related. You can give kids all the opportunity you want, but if you can’t pay for it, that seems to me to be the biggest sticking point.”

Basing admission policies on programs that are vulnerable could end poorly for schools and students, Dr. Leng added.

If DACA is revoked, “it’s not just a waste of money for the school, but a waste of time for the kids,” she said.

Protections hinge on Supreme Court … and next president

During oral arguments earlier this month, justices appeared to disagree on whether DAPA and expanded DACA were properly executed.

Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy indicated that the normal order of government policy making had been “turned upside down,” by the creation of the programs. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, meanwhile, noted that immigration policies with broader reaches have been similarly instituted in the past.

A ruling for the government would mean the president can use his executive power to enact policies that run contrary to immigration laws already in place, said Mr. Hethmon, the D.C. attorney. Current immigration laws trump informal agency discretion and do not allow for the government’s “arbitrary and capricious creation of a massive classification of nonstatus alien beneficiaries,” Mr. Hethmon wrote in his high court brief.

A decision that favors Texas would unravel opportunities for undocumented immigrants and prevent their ability to contribute to society, said Ignacia Rodriguez, a legal fellow at the National Immigration Law Center, which authored a brief in support of the government.

“What’s at stake is providing a stable environment for U.S. citizen children to grow, and providing people with the opportunity and tools to be able to contribute to the workforce [and] to the economy,” she said in an interview. “This is a payoff for everybody, not just those receiving the benefit.”

Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, the next president could have the last word, according Ashley C. Parrish, a Washington D.C. attorney who cowrote a brief in support of the states. Mr. Parrish takes no position on the merits of the immigration programs, but rather, he is concerned with the administration’s failure to follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements for notice-and-comment rule making.

“If the program were adopted as a legal rule after notice and comment, it could not be changed without going through a new notice-and-comment process,” he said. “If it is just a bare statement of policy, it can be changed at any time, without notice to anyone. The next administration could say, ‘Thank you for coming out of the shadows; we are now going to deport all of you.’ ”

Among the Democrats running for president, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said she will defend DACA and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has said he supports DACA and DAPA, and plans to expand them if elected.

Conversely, presumed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has indicated he would rescind DACA and related programs if elected.

After spending most of her life terrified of deportation, Ms. Rojas Marquez said she is not wasting time worrying about the Supreme Court’s decision or whether the next president will overturn the policy. She is keeping her studies foremost in her mind and the goal of becoming a doctor firmly in her heart.

“I have always lived with what-ifs,” she said. “This time around, I’m not going to be living in fear of the removing of DACA, because I wouldn’t have made it this far if I always lived in fear. My plan is no matter what happens, I’m going to finish medical school, and from there, I pray that I will be able to practice in the U.S.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by June.

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med