Cardiology News

Regular meditation reduced depression by roughly 44% in adults with coronary artery disease who were involved in a cardiovascular rehabilitation program.

An increasing body of research supports the impact of psychological risk factors including stress, personality type, anger, and hostility on conditions such as depression and anxiety, but also social isolation and low socioeconomic status, Ana Luisa Vitorino Monteiro, MD, of the University of Lisbon said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. In addition, “stress, anxiety, and depression deteriorate the cardiovascular (CV) system through psycho-neuro-immunoendocrinology system and behavioral pathways.”

Meditation as a tool for stress management has been gaining popularity, but its use as part of a CV rehabilitation program as a complementary therapy has not been well studied, she added.

Dr. Monteiro and colleagues recruited 80 adults with CAD who were undergoing CV rehabilitation to join a meditation program. Of these, 48 accepted (60%) and 40% declined. Those who accepted were part of an exercise-based CV rehabilitation program that met three times a week for at least 6 months. The mean age of the participants was 65 years, and 80% were male.

Participants were randomized to an intervention group with a weekly 90-minute session that included breathing and meditation for 1 month in addition to usual care, or to usual care in the rehabilitation program. Over the next 3 months, the intervention patients were encouraged to practice daily meditation for 20 minutes alone or using video support material, with a weekly follow-up phone call. Assessments of stress, anxiety, and depression took place at baseline and after 4 months using the Perceived Stress Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and HeartQoL questionnaire.

At 4 months, individuals in the meditation group had reduced depression levels significantly, by 44%, compared with controls (P < .001). Anxiety and stress decreased significantly, by 30% (P = .04) and 31% (P = .05), respectively. After 4 months, individuals in the control group were offered the opportunity to follow the meditation protocol.

In addition, “the emotional dimension of quality of life increased by 60% in the intervention group,” Dr. Monteiro noted. However, physical QoL did not change between groups.

The study was limited by the small sample size, and more research is needed in larger and more diverse populations, Dr. Monteiro said. However, the results support the value of meditation as an adjunct component of care for CAD patients in a long-term rehabilitation program.
 

Motivation makes a difference

The current study is important as an exploration of “a straightforward, simple, low-risk approach that could be an adjunct to benefit patients with serious cardiovascular disease,” Brian Olshansky, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview.

“We have moved into a time of polypharmacy and multiple interventions for patients with underlying cardiovascular disease which, in many cases, have proven benefit but also potential adverse effects,” he said. “Engaging patients to participate in their health care, when there is serious underlying cardiovascular disease, has potential beneficial impact in many ways. Meditation is a low-risk, low-cost, potentially beneficial adjunct to standard medical therapy that may enhance psychological outcomes as shown here in this small study.”

However, “patients often rely on high-cost, potentially high-risk therapeutic interventions, expecting complete control of their problems without their own collaborative intervention,” he noted.

Dr. Olshansky said he was not surprised by any of the findings, and would have been surprised if meditation had failed to show any benefit for the study population.

“I am very pleased to see these results and would encourage meditation practice to be part of cardiovascular rehabilitation for motivated individuals,” he said. “What did surprise me was the adherence to the meditation protocol for those who participated. This represents a highly motivated group and it may be difficult to expect the same results in less motivated individuals.”

The current study has several strengths, including the use of controls and high rates of adherence to the protocol, said Dr. Olshansky. Other strengths include the standardized approach and the reasonable quality of the outcome measures, which showed a substantial benefit.

However, “this is a small study of motivated individuals of whom 80% were male,” and generalizability to other populations is unclear, Dr. Olshansky said. In addition, the racial mix was not described, and the severity of the underlying coronary artery disease and the therapies provided to these individuals is not detailed. A sicker population may not fare as well.”

The reasons for the benefits of meditation remain uncertain, Dr. Olshansky said. “It could be, specifically, that the meditation itself has physiological effects that ultimately translate into psychosocial benefit. However, those who enrolled and were interested may have derived a placebo effect. In any case, benefit was achieved, but the crossover benefit to the control group is unclear.

“In other words, the statistical approach to benefit is uncertain as to when it was measured, but presumably before the control group was allowed to engage in a meditation practice,” and the follow-up was short term, said Dr. Olshansky.
 

Data support patient engagement

The message to clinicians and patients: “Patients should be engaged in their own health care when it comes to rehabilitation for cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Olshansky. “Motivated individuals who are educated about a meditative practice performed in a standardized way will have improvement most likely in their quality of life, and when it comes to measurements of depression, stress and anxiety.”

Although the mechanisms behind the benefits remain unclear, “having a standardized credible prescription for which patients can become intimately engaged is beneficial,” he added.

The study received no outside funding. Neither Dr. Monteiro nor Dr. Olshansky had any financial conflicts to disclose.


 

Regular meditation reduced depression by roughly 44% in adults with coronary artery disease who were involved in a cardiovascular rehabilitation program.

An increasing body of research supports the impact of psychological risk factors including stress, personality type, anger, and hostility on conditions such as depression and anxiety, but also social isolation and low socioeconomic status, Ana Luisa Vitorino Monteiro, MD, of the University of Lisbon said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. In addition, “stress, anxiety, and depression deteriorate the cardiovascular (CV) system through psycho-neuro-immunoendocrinology system and behavioral pathways.”

Meditation as a tool for stress management has been gaining popularity, but its use as part of a CV rehabilitation program as a complementary therapy has not been well studied, she added.

Dr. Monteiro and colleagues recruited 80 adults with CAD who were undergoing CV rehabilitation to join a meditation program. Of these, 48 accepted (60%) and 40% declined. Those who accepted were part of an exercise-based CV rehabilitation program that met three times a week for at least 6 months. The mean age of the participants was 65 years, and 80% were male.

Participants were randomized to an intervention group with a weekly 90-minute session that included breathing and meditation for 1 month in addition to usual care, or to usual care in the rehabilitation program. Over the next 3 months, the intervention patients were encouraged to practice daily meditation for 20 minutes alone or using video support material, with a weekly follow-up phone call. Assessments of stress, anxiety, and depression took place at baseline and after 4 months using the Perceived Stress Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and HeartQoL questionnaire.

At 4 months, individuals in the meditation group had reduced depression levels significantly, by 44%, compared with controls (P < .001). Anxiety and stress decreased significantly, by 30% (P = .04) and 31% (P = .05), respectively. After 4 months, individuals in the control group were offered the opportunity to follow the meditation protocol.

In addition, “the emotional dimension of quality of life increased by 60% in the intervention group,” Dr. Monteiro noted. However, physical QoL did not change between groups.

The study was limited by the small sample size, and more research is needed in larger and more diverse populations, Dr. Monteiro said. However, the results support the value of meditation as an adjunct component of care for CAD patients in a long-term rehabilitation program.
 

Motivation makes a difference

The current study is important as an exploration of “a straightforward, simple, low-risk approach that could be an adjunct to benefit patients with serious cardiovascular disease,” Brian Olshansky, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview.

“We have moved into a time of polypharmacy and multiple interventions for patients with underlying cardiovascular disease which, in many cases, have proven benefit but also potential adverse effects,” he said. “Engaging patients to participate in their health care, when there is serious underlying cardiovascular disease, has potential beneficial impact in many ways. Meditation is a low-risk, low-cost, potentially beneficial adjunct to standard medical therapy that may enhance psychological outcomes as shown here in this small study.”

However, “patients often rely on high-cost, potentially high-risk therapeutic interventions, expecting complete control of their problems without their own collaborative intervention,” he noted.

Dr. Olshansky said he was not surprised by any of the findings, and would have been surprised if meditation had failed to show any benefit for the study population.

“I am very pleased to see these results and would encourage meditation practice to be part of cardiovascular rehabilitation for motivated individuals,” he said. “What did surprise me was the adherence to the meditation protocol for those who participated. This represents a highly motivated group and it may be difficult to expect the same results in less motivated individuals.”

The current study has several strengths, including the use of controls and high rates of adherence to the protocol, said Dr. Olshansky. Other strengths include the standardized approach and the reasonable quality of the outcome measures, which showed a substantial benefit.

However, “this is a small study of motivated individuals of whom 80% were male,” and generalizability to other populations is unclear, Dr. Olshansky said. In addition, the racial mix was not described, and the severity of the underlying coronary artery disease and the therapies provided to these individuals is not detailed. A sicker population may not fare as well.”

The reasons for the benefits of meditation remain uncertain, Dr. Olshansky said. “It could be, specifically, that the meditation itself has physiological effects that ultimately translate into psychosocial benefit. However, those who enrolled and were interested may have derived a placebo effect. In any case, benefit was achieved, but the crossover benefit to the control group is unclear.

“In other words, the statistical approach to benefit is uncertain as to when it was measured, but presumably before the control group was allowed to engage in a meditation practice,” and the follow-up was short term, said Dr. Olshansky.
 

Data support patient engagement

The message to clinicians and patients: “Patients should be engaged in their own health care when it comes to rehabilitation for cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Olshansky. “Motivated individuals who are educated about a meditative practice performed in a standardized way will have improvement most likely in their quality of life, and when it comes to measurements of depression, stress and anxiety.”

Although the mechanisms behind the benefits remain unclear, “having a standardized credible prescription for which patients can become intimately engaged is beneficial,” he added.

The study received no outside funding. Neither Dr. Monteiro nor Dr. Olshansky had any financial conflicts to disclose.


 

Regular meditation reduced depression by roughly 44% in adults with coronary artery disease who were involved in a cardiovascular rehabilitation program.

An increasing body of research supports the impact of psychological risk factors including stress, personality type, anger, and hostility on conditions such as depression and anxiety, but also social isolation and low socioeconomic status, Ana Luisa Vitorino Monteiro, MD, of the University of Lisbon said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. In addition, “stress, anxiety, and depression deteriorate the cardiovascular (CV) system through psycho-neuro-immunoendocrinology system and behavioral pathways.”

Meditation as a tool for stress management has been gaining popularity, but its use as part of a CV rehabilitation program as a complementary therapy has not been well studied, she added.

Dr. Monteiro and colleagues recruited 80 adults with CAD who were undergoing CV rehabilitation to join a meditation program. Of these, 48 accepted (60%) and 40% declined. Those who accepted were part of an exercise-based CV rehabilitation program that met three times a week for at least 6 months. The mean age of the participants was 65 years, and 80% were male.

Participants were randomized to an intervention group with a weekly 90-minute session that included breathing and meditation for 1 month in addition to usual care, or to usual care in the rehabilitation program. Over the next 3 months, the intervention patients were encouraged to practice daily meditation for 20 minutes alone or using video support material, with a weekly follow-up phone call. Assessments of stress, anxiety, and depression took place at baseline and after 4 months using the Perceived Stress Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and HeartQoL questionnaire.

At 4 months, individuals in the meditation group had reduced depression levels significantly, by 44%, compared with controls (P < .001). Anxiety and stress decreased significantly, by 30% (P = .04) and 31% (P = .05), respectively. After 4 months, individuals in the control group were offered the opportunity to follow the meditation protocol.

In addition, “the emotional dimension of quality of life increased by 60% in the intervention group,” Dr. Monteiro noted. However, physical QoL did not change between groups.

The study was limited by the small sample size, and more research is needed in larger and more diverse populations, Dr. Monteiro said. However, the results support the value of meditation as an adjunct component of care for CAD patients in a long-term rehabilitation program.
 

Motivation makes a difference

The current study is important as an exploration of “a straightforward, simple, low-risk approach that could be an adjunct to benefit patients with serious cardiovascular disease,” Brian Olshansky, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview.

“We have moved into a time of polypharmacy and multiple interventions for patients with underlying cardiovascular disease which, in many cases, have proven benefit but also potential adverse effects,” he said. “Engaging patients to participate in their health care, when there is serious underlying cardiovascular disease, has potential beneficial impact in many ways. Meditation is a low-risk, low-cost, potentially beneficial adjunct to standard medical therapy that may enhance psychological outcomes as shown here in this small study.”

However, “patients often rely on high-cost, potentially high-risk therapeutic interventions, expecting complete control of their problems without their own collaborative intervention,” he noted.

Dr. Olshansky said he was not surprised by any of the findings, and would have been surprised if meditation had failed to show any benefit for the study population.

“I am very pleased to see these results and would encourage meditation practice to be part of cardiovascular rehabilitation for motivated individuals,” he said. “What did surprise me was the adherence to the meditation protocol for those who participated. This represents a highly motivated group and it may be difficult to expect the same results in less motivated individuals.”

The current study has several strengths, including the use of controls and high rates of adherence to the protocol, said Dr. Olshansky. Other strengths include the standardized approach and the reasonable quality of the outcome measures, which showed a substantial benefit.

However, “this is a small study of motivated individuals of whom 80% were male,” and generalizability to other populations is unclear, Dr. Olshansky said. In addition, the racial mix was not described, and the severity of the underlying coronary artery disease and the therapies provided to these individuals is not detailed. A sicker population may not fare as well.”

The reasons for the benefits of meditation remain uncertain, Dr. Olshansky said. “It could be, specifically, that the meditation itself has physiological effects that ultimately translate into psychosocial benefit. However, those who enrolled and were interested may have derived a placebo effect. In any case, benefit was achieved, but the crossover benefit to the control group is unclear.

“In other words, the statistical approach to benefit is uncertain as to when it was measured, but presumably before the control group was allowed to engage in a meditation practice,” and the follow-up was short term, said Dr. Olshansky.
 

Data support patient engagement

The message to clinicians and patients: “Patients should be engaged in their own health care when it comes to rehabilitation for cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Olshansky. “Motivated individuals who are educated about a meditative practice performed in a standardized way will have improvement most likely in their quality of life, and when it comes to measurements of depression, stress and anxiety.”

Although the mechanisms behind the benefits remain unclear, “having a standardized credible prescription for which patients can become intimately engaged is beneficial,” he added.

The study received no outside funding. Neither Dr. Monteiro nor Dr. Olshansky had any financial conflicts to disclose.


 

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal research project aims to answer lingering questions about long COVID using mobile monitoring devices to help track the condition.

The federally funded RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people with long COVID to collect data in real time.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The hope is that researchers will be able to provide doctors and patients with a wealth of information to address gaps in knowledge about long COVID.

The project takes advantage of the approach other researchers have used to track patients’ health data on heart rate, exercise, and more using mobile monitoring devices such as Fitbits, smartwatches, and other remote sensors. 

Researchers believe the initiative could be particularly useful for people with long COVID – whose symptoms come and go. They can use a wristband sensor to passively collect data in real time.

For a condition defined by its symptoms, that kind of data promises to be useful, experts said. 

But not everyone has room in their budget for a smartwatch or a fitness tracker. Until recently, most clinical trials were BYOD: Bring your own device. At a time when researchers are trying to make sure that clinical trials reflect the diversity of the population, that leaves a lot of people out.

So, researchers are starting to supply subjects with their own monitors. The RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people who are eligible based on race/ethnicity, income, and other demographic factors (rural residents for example). After 2 months, all people in the RECOVER study over the age of 13 will be eligible for the sensors.

The federal program builds on earlier research at places like The Scripps Institute, a center of research into remote monitoring. The institute supplied 7,000 monitors to people in an arm of the All of Us study, a 5-year-old multisite cohort that aims to collect medical information from 1 million people. 

The devices went to people who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research, said Scripps researchers, who plan to give out more this year. 

In March of 2023, Scripps researchers published a study on the tracking data that found a significant post-COVID-19 drop in physical activity. But the data are incomplete because many people can’t always afford these devices. Most of the people in the study were “White, young, and active,” they wrote.

Researchers at an All of Us site at Vanderbilt University, which also used a BYOD approach, realized that they produced biased results. They reported their findings at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in January.

“[The] majority of participants who provided Fitbit data reported being White and employed for wages,” they said. “However, these data represent participants who had their own Fitbit devices and consented to share EHR [electronic health record] data.”

Their solution: The program has begun providing Fitbit devices to all study participants who do not own one or cannot afford one. 

Now, the web page for the All of Us study asks visitors to “Learn about the All of Us WEAR study. You could get a Fitbit at no cost! … As a part of the WEAR Study, you could receive a new Fitbit to wear at no cost to you. All of Us will be able to get the data the Fitbit collects. This data may help us understand how behavior impacts health.”

Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute, is heading up the DETECT study, which is a remote monitoring research project that has enrolled over 40,000 people who have their own sensors – be it a smartwatch or Fitbit. She was looking at remote monitoring for disease before COVID emerged.

Dr. Radin said she began researching remote sensing after working in public health and dealing with outdated data collection systems. 

“They typically rely on case reports that are recorded by pen and paper and faxed or mailed in,” she said. “Then, they have to be entered into a database. “

In addition to offering objective data on a subject’s physical response to the infection, she said, the data collection can be long-term and continuous. 

DETECT collects data on resting heart rate, which is unique to every person, and activity levels. Both measures are meaningful for those with long COVID. Her research found differences in sleep, heart rate, and activity between those with COVID and those without.

Joseph Kvedar, MD, is a Harvard Medical School researcher and the editor of  NPJ Digital Medicine. He’s been studying digital health systems and called clinical research a “beachhead” for the use of data from monitors. But he also said problems remain that need to be worked out. The quality of the devices and their Bluetooth connections are better. But different devices measure different things, and a counted step can vary from person to person, he said. And the problems of the early days of electronic health records have not been fully resolved.

“We haven’t gotten to this universal language to connect all these things and make them relevant,” he said. 

The All of Us researchers are working with the RECOVER project to address some of those issues. Usually not focused on a single condition, the All of Us researchers are testing a machine-learning approach for identifying long COVID. 
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

A new federal research project aims to answer lingering questions about long COVID using mobile monitoring devices to help track the condition.

The federally funded RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people with long COVID to collect data in real time.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The hope is that researchers will be able to provide doctors and patients with a wealth of information to address gaps in knowledge about long COVID.

The project takes advantage of the approach other researchers have used to track patients’ health data on heart rate, exercise, and more using mobile monitoring devices such as Fitbits, smartwatches, and other remote sensors. 

Researchers believe the initiative could be particularly useful for people with long COVID – whose symptoms come and go. They can use a wristband sensor to passively collect data in real time.

For a condition defined by its symptoms, that kind of data promises to be useful, experts said. 

But not everyone has room in their budget for a smartwatch or a fitness tracker. Until recently, most clinical trials were BYOD: Bring your own device. At a time when researchers are trying to make sure that clinical trials reflect the diversity of the population, that leaves a lot of people out.

So, researchers are starting to supply subjects with their own monitors. The RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people who are eligible based on race/ethnicity, income, and other demographic factors (rural residents for example). After 2 months, all people in the RECOVER study over the age of 13 will be eligible for the sensors.

The federal program builds on earlier research at places like The Scripps Institute, a center of research into remote monitoring. The institute supplied 7,000 monitors to people in an arm of the All of Us study, a 5-year-old multisite cohort that aims to collect medical information from 1 million people. 

The devices went to people who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research, said Scripps researchers, who plan to give out more this year. 

In March of 2023, Scripps researchers published a study on the tracking data that found a significant post-COVID-19 drop in physical activity. But the data are incomplete because many people can’t always afford these devices. Most of the people in the study were “White, young, and active,” they wrote.

Researchers at an All of Us site at Vanderbilt University, which also used a BYOD approach, realized that they produced biased results. They reported their findings at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in January.

“[The] majority of participants who provided Fitbit data reported being White and employed for wages,” they said. “However, these data represent participants who had their own Fitbit devices and consented to share EHR [electronic health record] data.”

Their solution: The program has begun providing Fitbit devices to all study participants who do not own one or cannot afford one. 

Now, the web page for the All of Us study asks visitors to “Learn about the All of Us WEAR study. You could get a Fitbit at no cost! … As a part of the WEAR Study, you could receive a new Fitbit to wear at no cost to you. All of Us will be able to get the data the Fitbit collects. This data may help us understand how behavior impacts health.”

Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute, is heading up the DETECT study, which is a remote monitoring research project that has enrolled over 40,000 people who have their own sensors – be it a smartwatch or Fitbit. She was looking at remote monitoring for disease before COVID emerged.

Dr. Radin said she began researching remote sensing after working in public health and dealing with outdated data collection systems. 

“They typically rely on case reports that are recorded by pen and paper and faxed or mailed in,” she said. “Then, they have to be entered into a database. “

In addition to offering objective data on a subject’s physical response to the infection, she said, the data collection can be long-term and continuous. 

DETECT collects data on resting heart rate, which is unique to every person, and activity levels. Both measures are meaningful for those with long COVID. Her research found differences in sleep, heart rate, and activity between those with COVID and those without.

Joseph Kvedar, MD, is a Harvard Medical School researcher and the editor of  NPJ Digital Medicine. He’s been studying digital health systems and called clinical research a “beachhead” for the use of data from monitors. But he also said problems remain that need to be worked out. The quality of the devices and their Bluetooth connections are better. But different devices measure different things, and a counted step can vary from person to person, he said. And the problems of the early days of electronic health records have not been fully resolved.

“We haven’t gotten to this universal language to connect all these things and make them relevant,” he said. 

The All of Us researchers are working with the RECOVER project to address some of those issues. Usually not focused on a single condition, the All of Us researchers are testing a machine-learning approach for identifying long COVID. 
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

A new federal research project aims to answer lingering questions about long COVID using mobile monitoring devices to help track the condition.

The federally funded RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people with long COVID to collect data in real time.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The hope is that researchers will be able to provide doctors and patients with a wealth of information to address gaps in knowledge about long COVID.

The project takes advantage of the approach other researchers have used to track patients’ health data on heart rate, exercise, and more using mobile monitoring devices such as Fitbits, smartwatches, and other remote sensors. 

Researchers believe the initiative could be particularly useful for people with long COVID – whose symptoms come and go. They can use a wristband sensor to passively collect data in real time.

For a condition defined by its symptoms, that kind of data promises to be useful, experts said. 

But not everyone has room in their budget for a smartwatch or a fitness tracker. Until recently, most clinical trials were BYOD: Bring your own device. At a time when researchers are trying to make sure that clinical trials reflect the diversity of the population, that leaves a lot of people out.

So, researchers are starting to supply subjects with their own monitors. The RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people who are eligible based on race/ethnicity, income, and other demographic factors (rural residents for example). After 2 months, all people in the RECOVER study over the age of 13 will be eligible for the sensors.

The federal program builds on earlier research at places like The Scripps Institute, a center of research into remote monitoring. The institute supplied 7,000 monitors to people in an arm of the All of Us study, a 5-year-old multisite cohort that aims to collect medical information from 1 million people. 

The devices went to people who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research, said Scripps researchers, who plan to give out more this year. 

In March of 2023, Scripps researchers published a study on the tracking data that found a significant post-COVID-19 drop in physical activity. But the data are incomplete because many people can’t always afford these devices. Most of the people in the study were “White, young, and active,” they wrote.

Researchers at an All of Us site at Vanderbilt University, which also used a BYOD approach, realized that they produced biased results. They reported their findings at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in January.

“[The] majority of participants who provided Fitbit data reported being White and employed for wages,” they said. “However, these data represent participants who had their own Fitbit devices and consented to share EHR [electronic health record] data.”

Their solution: The program has begun providing Fitbit devices to all study participants who do not own one or cannot afford one. 

Now, the web page for the All of Us study asks visitors to “Learn about the All of Us WEAR study. You could get a Fitbit at no cost! … As a part of the WEAR Study, you could receive a new Fitbit to wear at no cost to you. All of Us will be able to get the data the Fitbit collects. This data may help us understand how behavior impacts health.”

Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute, is heading up the DETECT study, which is a remote monitoring research project that has enrolled over 40,000 people who have their own sensors – be it a smartwatch or Fitbit. She was looking at remote monitoring for disease before COVID emerged.

Dr. Radin said she began researching remote sensing after working in public health and dealing with outdated data collection systems. 

“They typically rely on case reports that are recorded by pen and paper and faxed or mailed in,” she said. “Then, they have to be entered into a database. “

In addition to offering objective data on a subject’s physical response to the infection, she said, the data collection can be long-term and continuous. 

DETECT collects data on resting heart rate, which is unique to every person, and activity levels. Both measures are meaningful for those with long COVID. Her research found differences in sleep, heart rate, and activity between those with COVID and those without.

Joseph Kvedar, MD, is a Harvard Medical School researcher and the editor of  NPJ Digital Medicine. He’s been studying digital health systems and called clinical research a “beachhead” for the use of data from monitors. But he also said problems remain that need to be worked out. The quality of the devices and their Bluetooth connections are better. But different devices measure different things, and a counted step can vary from person to person, he said. And the problems of the early days of electronic health records have not been fully resolved.

“We haven’t gotten to this universal language to connect all these things and make them relevant,” he said. 

The All of Us researchers are working with the RECOVER project to address some of those issues. Usually not focused on a single condition, the All of Us researchers are testing a machine-learning approach for identifying long COVID. 
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

Black patients with cancer are significantly more likely to experience cardiotoxicity and heart failure related to chemotherapy than White cancer patients are, a research review indicates.

“It’s important that both patients and clinicians be aware of these disparities so that more meaningful conversations around long-term cardiac health and cancer treatment can take place,” lead investigator Wondewossen Gebeyehu, with the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

However, patients “should not avoid chemotherapy, as the most important thing is making sure they get the best cancer treatment possible, and studies already show Black patients may get less optimal cancer treatments,” Mr. Gebeyehu added in a statement.

Ana Barac, MD, PHD, chair of cardio-oncology at Inova Schar Cancer Institute and Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Fairfax, Va., who wasn’t involved in the study, agreed.

“The most important message is to look at preexisting cardiovascular disease, oncology diagnosis, and be aware of existing disparities in a specific cancer and CVD,” Barac said in an interview.

“What should NOT happen is to overinterpret this report of cardiotoxicity as an indication to modify/avoid planned cancer treatment to decrease cardiotoxicity. This approach could worsen oncology outcomes and lead to undertreatment of cancer, therefore posing real danger,” said Dr. Barac.

The study was presented at the American College of Cardiology Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient 2023 conference.
 

Causes unclear

Chemotherapy is known to increase the risk of cardiovascular heart failure and other forms of CVD, but less is known about racial disparities in the incidence of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity.

Mr. Gebeyehu and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to assess racial disparities in CV adverse effects among cancer patients who were treated with chemotherapeutic agents. They screened 7,057 studies, fully reviewed 57, and included 24 studies, representing 683,749 participants, in their analysis.

Breast cancer was the most commonly reported malignancy. Other common malignancies were prostate, kidney, and hematologic malignancies such as leukemia and lymphoma.

Chemotherapeutic agents included anthracyclines (doxorubicin, daunorubicin), trastuzumab, and hormonal therapies.

Black race or African ancestry was associated with increased odds of chemotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.10), as well as congestive heart failure (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.68-2.19).

Mr. Gebeyehu said in an interview that it’s hard to speculate on causation with an analysis of preexisting data such as this. “Our initial analysis that we’ve reported on so far are unadjusted values, meaning they don’t adjust for those potential underlying factors,” he noted.

“However, some of the studies individually controlled for socioeconomic factors and still found increased vulnerability to chemotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity in patients of Black race or African ancestry,” Mr. Gebeyehu said.

“It’s certainly possible that a mix of both biological and socioeconomic factors are interacting to lead to these disparities. One example could be the underrepresentation of Black patients in clinical trials to develop drugs. These could lead to chemotherapeutic agents being poorly optimized in this population relative to other racial/ethnic groups,” he added.

Dr. Barac said this study adds to the growing body of evidence about the importance of racial disparities in CVD and cancer outcomes.

“It is important to note that only the unadjusted odds ratio was reported and that much more detail is needed to understand what may be underlying the disparities. It is critically important to await the adjusted analysis, as well as details of the type of cancers and treatment used, before clinical implications can be discussed,” said Dr. Barac, who served as codirector of the conference.

“The risk of cardiotoxicity needs to be presented in the context of the oncology and CV disease burden, as both can influence the risk, and there could be a synergistic effect of disparities,” Dr. Barac added.

The study had no specific funding. Mr. Gebeyehu and Dr. Barac disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Black patients with cancer are significantly more likely to experience cardiotoxicity and heart failure related to chemotherapy than White cancer patients are, a research review indicates.

“It’s important that both patients and clinicians be aware of these disparities so that more meaningful conversations around long-term cardiac health and cancer treatment can take place,” lead investigator Wondewossen Gebeyehu, with the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

However, patients “should not avoid chemotherapy, as the most important thing is making sure they get the best cancer treatment possible, and studies already show Black patients may get less optimal cancer treatments,” Mr. Gebeyehu added in a statement.

Ana Barac, MD, PHD, chair of cardio-oncology at Inova Schar Cancer Institute and Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Fairfax, Va., who wasn’t involved in the study, agreed.

“The most important message is to look at preexisting cardiovascular disease, oncology diagnosis, and be aware of existing disparities in a specific cancer and CVD,” Barac said in an interview.

“What should NOT happen is to overinterpret this report of cardiotoxicity as an indication to modify/avoid planned cancer treatment to decrease cardiotoxicity. This approach could worsen oncology outcomes and lead to undertreatment of cancer, therefore posing real danger,” said Dr. Barac.

The study was presented at the American College of Cardiology Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient 2023 conference.
 

Causes unclear

Chemotherapy is known to increase the risk of cardiovascular heart failure and other forms of CVD, but less is known about racial disparities in the incidence of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity.

Mr. Gebeyehu and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to assess racial disparities in CV adverse effects among cancer patients who were treated with chemotherapeutic agents. They screened 7,057 studies, fully reviewed 57, and included 24 studies, representing 683,749 participants, in their analysis.

Breast cancer was the most commonly reported malignancy. Other common malignancies were prostate, kidney, and hematologic malignancies such as leukemia and lymphoma.

Chemotherapeutic agents included anthracyclines (doxorubicin, daunorubicin), trastuzumab, and hormonal therapies.

Black race or African ancestry was associated with increased odds of chemotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.10), as well as congestive heart failure (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.68-2.19).

Mr. Gebeyehu said in an interview that it’s hard to speculate on causation with an analysis of preexisting data such as this. “Our initial analysis that we’ve reported on so far are unadjusted values, meaning they don’t adjust for those potential underlying factors,” he noted.

“However, some of the studies individually controlled for socioeconomic factors and still found increased vulnerability to chemotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity in patients of Black race or African ancestry,” Mr. Gebeyehu said.

“It’s certainly possible that a mix of both biological and socioeconomic factors are interacting to lead to these disparities. One example could be the underrepresentation of Black patients in clinical trials to develop drugs. These could lead to chemotherapeutic agents being poorly optimized in this population relative to other racial/ethnic groups,” he added.

Dr. Barac said this study adds to the growing body of evidence about the importance of racial disparities in CVD and cancer outcomes.

“It is important to note that only the unadjusted odds ratio was reported and that much more detail is needed to understand what may be underlying the disparities. It is critically important to await the adjusted analysis, as well as details of the type of cancers and treatment used, before clinical implications can be discussed,” said Dr. Barac, who served as codirector of the conference.

“The risk of cardiotoxicity needs to be presented in the context of the oncology and CV disease burden, as both can influence the risk, and there could be a synergistic effect of disparities,” Dr. Barac added.

The study had no specific funding. Mr. Gebeyehu and Dr. Barac disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Black patients with cancer are significantly more likely to experience cardiotoxicity and heart failure related to chemotherapy than White cancer patients are, a research review indicates.

“It’s important that both patients and clinicians be aware of these disparities so that more meaningful conversations around long-term cardiac health and cancer treatment can take place,” lead investigator Wondewossen Gebeyehu, with the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

However, patients “should not avoid chemotherapy, as the most important thing is making sure they get the best cancer treatment possible, and studies already show Black patients may get less optimal cancer treatments,” Mr. Gebeyehu added in a statement.

Ana Barac, MD, PHD, chair of cardio-oncology at Inova Schar Cancer Institute and Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Fairfax, Va., who wasn’t involved in the study, agreed.

“The most important message is to look at preexisting cardiovascular disease, oncology diagnosis, and be aware of existing disparities in a specific cancer and CVD,” Barac said in an interview.

“What should NOT happen is to overinterpret this report of cardiotoxicity as an indication to modify/avoid planned cancer treatment to decrease cardiotoxicity. This approach could worsen oncology outcomes and lead to undertreatment of cancer, therefore posing real danger,” said Dr. Barac.

The study was presented at the American College of Cardiology Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient 2023 conference.
 

Causes unclear

Chemotherapy is known to increase the risk of cardiovascular heart failure and other forms of CVD, but less is known about racial disparities in the incidence of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity.

Mr. Gebeyehu and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to assess racial disparities in CV adverse effects among cancer patients who were treated with chemotherapeutic agents. They screened 7,057 studies, fully reviewed 57, and included 24 studies, representing 683,749 participants, in their analysis.

Breast cancer was the most commonly reported malignancy. Other common malignancies were prostate, kidney, and hematologic malignancies such as leukemia and lymphoma.

Chemotherapeutic agents included anthracyclines (doxorubicin, daunorubicin), trastuzumab, and hormonal therapies.

Black race or African ancestry was associated with increased odds of chemotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.10), as well as congestive heart failure (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.68-2.19).

Mr. Gebeyehu said in an interview that it’s hard to speculate on causation with an analysis of preexisting data such as this. “Our initial analysis that we’ve reported on so far are unadjusted values, meaning they don’t adjust for those potential underlying factors,” he noted.

“However, some of the studies individually controlled for socioeconomic factors and still found increased vulnerability to chemotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity in patients of Black race or African ancestry,” Mr. Gebeyehu said.

“It’s certainly possible that a mix of both biological and socioeconomic factors are interacting to lead to these disparities. One example could be the underrepresentation of Black patients in clinical trials to develop drugs. These could lead to chemotherapeutic agents being poorly optimized in this population relative to other racial/ethnic groups,” he added.

Dr. Barac said this study adds to the growing body of evidence about the importance of racial disparities in CVD and cancer outcomes.

“It is important to note that only the unadjusted odds ratio was reported and that much more detail is needed to understand what may be underlying the disparities. It is critically important to await the adjusted analysis, as well as details of the type of cancers and treatment used, before clinical implications can be discussed,” said Dr. Barac, who served as codirector of the conference.

“The risk of cardiotoxicity needs to be presented in the context of the oncology and CV disease burden, as both can influence the risk, and there could be a synergistic effect of disparities,” Dr. Barac added.

The study had no specific funding. Mr. Gebeyehu and Dr. Barac disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

An unusual cause of ischemic stroke – the presence of structural bone and cartilage anomalies which cause mechanical stress to arteries supplying the brain – has been highlighted in a new case series.

These so-called “bony” strokes constitute a possible cause of recurrent ischemia in the same vascular territory as previous episodes, note the authors, led by Johanna Haertl, MD, Technical University of Munich.

“In patients with recurrent strokes in one vascular territory the presence of a symptomatic anatomic bone or cartilage anomaly may be considered as a differential diagnosis after sufficient exclusion of competing etiologies of an ischemic stroke,” they conclude.

“Due to the possibly high risk of stroke recurrence and potentially causative treatment options, bony strokes seem to be highly relevant for clinical practice,” they add.

The study was published online in the journal Stroke.

In their report, investigators explain that diagnosis of a bony stroke is based on a combination of imaging devices including CT, MRI, angiography, and sonography of brain-supplying vessels.

In addition to conventional static imaging, dynamic imaging modalities with the patients’ head in a fixed rotation or reclination has been shown to be useful as this enables the detection of a compressive effect on brain-supplying arteries caused by head movement.

They note that these bony strokes have been described previously – mainly as single case reports or small case series – but a systematic evaluation of each anatomical type of bony stroke is currently lacking.

For the current paper, the authors describe the identification and therapeutic workup of six patients with a bony stroke among 4,200 patients with ischemic stroke treated from January 2017 to March 2022 at their comprehensive stroke care center, constituting an incidence of 0.14%.

But they caution, “Given our retrospective study design, the method of patient acquisition, and the lack of systematic evaluation of bony strokes during acute stroke treatment, epidemiologic conclusions can be drawn only very carefully.”

In each of these six cases, the recurrent stroke was found to be caused by large-artery embolism from mechanical stress by bone or cartilage anomalies on arteries supplying the brain.

“Our case series aims to raise awareness for the rare entity of bony strokes, emphasizing the necessity to evaluate structural bone or cartilage lesions as a possible cause of ischemic stroke in patients with stroke recurrence of unknown cause in one vascular territory. We further aim on highlighting individual diagnostic and therapeutic options,” they state.

They note that it has previously been suggested that ischemic strokes based on bone or cartilage anomalies are more common in the relatively young patients with stroke, which is in line with their current patient data (mean age, 55 years), but this may reflect a selection bias.

A medical history with an association between changes in the head position and the occurrence of ischemic stroke may also raise awareness of the possibility of a bony stroke.

The authors outline treatment options for bony stroke, which they describe as diverse: They include conservative treatment, endovascular stenting, occlusion of the affected vessel, surgical bypass, and bone/cartilage removal.

From a pathophysiologic point of view, it seems reasonable to eliminate a causative lesion by surgical removal of the mechanical stressor, they note.

In cases of vascular stenting, they caution that the remainder of the mechanical stressor may provoke stent fracture and recurrent stroke, which occurred in two of their patients, a situation that may be observed more often in the future with the increasing use of vascular stenting.

The authors report that, compared with annual stroke rates in atrial fibrillation patients, stroke recurrence in this patient cohort ahead of definite treatment was high (cumulative 2.14 strokes per year). And as no patient had further ischemia after treatment, they argue that diagnosis and appropriate treatment of bony stroke may reduce or even eliminate the risk for future stroke recurrence.

They propose that for the diagnosis an exact medical history, with emphasis on a possible change of head position at the onset of stroke symptoms, is useful.  

Furthermore, previously acquired diagnostic scans including CT or MRI may be evaluated for a symptomatic vessel-bone or cartilage contact. Then, the additional application of dynamic imaging modalities, including dynamic ultrasound of brain-supplying vessels and CT-angiography, may be discussed.

“An appropriate diagnosis and the evaluation of individual and interdisciplinary treatment options seem crucial to prevent recurrent ischemic strokes. Future prospective trials seem mandatory to optimize patient care,” they conclude.

The study had no specific funding. Coauthor Jan S. Kirschke, MD, received research support from the German Research Foundation, Bonescreen, H2020 European Research Council, and Philips. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An unusual cause of ischemic stroke – the presence of structural bone and cartilage anomalies which cause mechanical stress to arteries supplying the brain – has been highlighted in a new case series.

These so-called “bony” strokes constitute a possible cause of recurrent ischemia in the same vascular territory as previous episodes, note the authors, led by Johanna Haertl, MD, Technical University of Munich.

“In patients with recurrent strokes in one vascular territory the presence of a symptomatic anatomic bone or cartilage anomaly may be considered as a differential diagnosis after sufficient exclusion of competing etiologies of an ischemic stroke,” they conclude.

“Due to the possibly high risk of stroke recurrence and potentially causative treatment options, bony strokes seem to be highly relevant for clinical practice,” they add.

The study was published online in the journal Stroke.

In their report, investigators explain that diagnosis of a bony stroke is based on a combination of imaging devices including CT, MRI, angiography, and sonography of brain-supplying vessels.

In addition to conventional static imaging, dynamic imaging modalities with the patients’ head in a fixed rotation or reclination has been shown to be useful as this enables the detection of a compressive effect on brain-supplying arteries caused by head movement.

They note that these bony strokes have been described previously – mainly as single case reports or small case series – but a systematic evaluation of each anatomical type of bony stroke is currently lacking.

For the current paper, the authors describe the identification and therapeutic workup of six patients with a bony stroke among 4,200 patients with ischemic stroke treated from January 2017 to March 2022 at their comprehensive stroke care center, constituting an incidence of 0.14%.

But they caution, “Given our retrospective study design, the method of patient acquisition, and the lack of systematic evaluation of bony strokes during acute stroke treatment, epidemiologic conclusions can be drawn only very carefully.”

In each of these six cases, the recurrent stroke was found to be caused by large-artery embolism from mechanical stress by bone or cartilage anomalies on arteries supplying the brain.

“Our case series aims to raise awareness for the rare entity of bony strokes, emphasizing the necessity to evaluate structural bone or cartilage lesions as a possible cause of ischemic stroke in patients with stroke recurrence of unknown cause in one vascular territory. We further aim on highlighting individual diagnostic and therapeutic options,” they state.

They note that it has previously been suggested that ischemic strokes based on bone or cartilage anomalies are more common in the relatively young patients with stroke, which is in line with their current patient data (mean age, 55 years), but this may reflect a selection bias.

A medical history with an association between changes in the head position and the occurrence of ischemic stroke may also raise awareness of the possibility of a bony stroke.

The authors outline treatment options for bony stroke, which they describe as diverse: They include conservative treatment, endovascular stenting, occlusion of the affected vessel, surgical bypass, and bone/cartilage removal.

From a pathophysiologic point of view, it seems reasonable to eliminate a causative lesion by surgical removal of the mechanical stressor, they note.

In cases of vascular stenting, they caution that the remainder of the mechanical stressor may provoke stent fracture and recurrent stroke, which occurred in two of their patients, a situation that may be observed more often in the future with the increasing use of vascular stenting.

The authors report that, compared with annual stroke rates in atrial fibrillation patients, stroke recurrence in this patient cohort ahead of definite treatment was high (cumulative 2.14 strokes per year). And as no patient had further ischemia after treatment, they argue that diagnosis and appropriate treatment of bony stroke may reduce or even eliminate the risk for future stroke recurrence.

They propose that for the diagnosis an exact medical history, with emphasis on a possible change of head position at the onset of stroke symptoms, is useful.  

Furthermore, previously acquired diagnostic scans including CT or MRI may be evaluated for a symptomatic vessel-bone or cartilage contact. Then, the additional application of dynamic imaging modalities, including dynamic ultrasound of brain-supplying vessels and CT-angiography, may be discussed.

“An appropriate diagnosis and the evaluation of individual and interdisciplinary treatment options seem crucial to prevent recurrent ischemic strokes. Future prospective trials seem mandatory to optimize patient care,” they conclude.

The study had no specific funding. Coauthor Jan S. Kirschke, MD, received research support from the German Research Foundation, Bonescreen, H2020 European Research Council, and Philips. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An unusual cause of ischemic stroke – the presence of structural bone and cartilage anomalies which cause mechanical stress to arteries supplying the brain – has been highlighted in a new case series.

These so-called “bony” strokes constitute a possible cause of recurrent ischemia in the same vascular territory as previous episodes, note the authors, led by Johanna Haertl, MD, Technical University of Munich.

“In patients with recurrent strokes in one vascular territory the presence of a symptomatic anatomic bone or cartilage anomaly may be considered as a differential diagnosis after sufficient exclusion of competing etiologies of an ischemic stroke,” they conclude.

“Due to the possibly high risk of stroke recurrence and potentially causative treatment options, bony strokes seem to be highly relevant for clinical practice,” they add.

The study was published online in the journal Stroke.

In their report, investigators explain that diagnosis of a bony stroke is based on a combination of imaging devices including CT, MRI, angiography, and sonography of brain-supplying vessels.

In addition to conventional static imaging, dynamic imaging modalities with the patients’ head in a fixed rotation or reclination has been shown to be useful as this enables the detection of a compressive effect on brain-supplying arteries caused by head movement.

They note that these bony strokes have been described previously – mainly as single case reports or small case series – but a systematic evaluation of each anatomical type of bony stroke is currently lacking.

For the current paper, the authors describe the identification and therapeutic workup of six patients with a bony stroke among 4,200 patients with ischemic stroke treated from January 2017 to March 2022 at their comprehensive stroke care center, constituting an incidence of 0.14%.

But they caution, “Given our retrospective study design, the method of patient acquisition, and the lack of systematic evaluation of bony strokes during acute stroke treatment, epidemiologic conclusions can be drawn only very carefully.”

In each of these six cases, the recurrent stroke was found to be caused by large-artery embolism from mechanical stress by bone or cartilage anomalies on arteries supplying the brain.

“Our case series aims to raise awareness for the rare entity of bony strokes, emphasizing the necessity to evaluate structural bone or cartilage lesions as a possible cause of ischemic stroke in patients with stroke recurrence of unknown cause in one vascular territory. We further aim on highlighting individual diagnostic and therapeutic options,” they state.

They note that it has previously been suggested that ischemic strokes based on bone or cartilage anomalies are more common in the relatively young patients with stroke, which is in line with their current patient data (mean age, 55 years), but this may reflect a selection bias.

A medical history with an association between changes in the head position and the occurrence of ischemic stroke may also raise awareness of the possibility of a bony stroke.

The authors outline treatment options for bony stroke, which they describe as diverse: They include conservative treatment, endovascular stenting, occlusion of the affected vessel, surgical bypass, and bone/cartilage removal.

From a pathophysiologic point of view, it seems reasonable to eliminate a causative lesion by surgical removal of the mechanical stressor, they note.

In cases of vascular stenting, they caution that the remainder of the mechanical stressor may provoke stent fracture and recurrent stroke, which occurred in two of their patients, a situation that may be observed more often in the future with the increasing use of vascular stenting.

The authors report that, compared with annual stroke rates in atrial fibrillation patients, stroke recurrence in this patient cohort ahead of definite treatment was high (cumulative 2.14 strokes per year). And as no patient had further ischemia after treatment, they argue that diagnosis and appropriate treatment of bony stroke may reduce or even eliminate the risk for future stroke recurrence.

They propose that for the diagnosis an exact medical history, with emphasis on a possible change of head position at the onset of stroke symptoms, is useful.  

Furthermore, previously acquired diagnostic scans including CT or MRI may be evaluated for a symptomatic vessel-bone or cartilage contact. Then, the additional application of dynamic imaging modalities, including dynamic ultrasound of brain-supplying vessels and CT-angiography, may be discussed.

“An appropriate diagnosis and the evaluation of individual and interdisciplinary treatment options seem crucial to prevent recurrent ischemic strokes. Future prospective trials seem mandatory to optimize patient care,” they conclude.

The study had no specific funding. Coauthor Jan S. Kirschke, MD, received research support from the German Research Foundation, Bonescreen, H2020 European Research Council, and Philips. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its annual update to the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) and long-term care hospital (LTCH) PPS on April 10, with many changes centered around improving health equity and quality as well as alleviating rural clinician shortages.

“This proposed rule reflects our person-centric approach to better measure health care quality and safety in hospitals to reduce preventable harm and our commitment to ensure that people with Medicare in rural and underserved areas have improved access to high-quality health care,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement.

Here are 14 things to know about the fiscal year (FY) 2024 proposal:

1. New payment rate: Acute-care hospitals that report inpatient quality data and participate in the EHR Meaningful Use program will receive a 2.8% net increase in payment rates. The rate adjustment will send approximately $3.3 billion more funding to hospitals compared with 2023.

2. LTCH payments: CMS projects that the LTCH standard payment rate will increase by 2.9%, whereas discharge payments will decrease by 2.5% or $59 million.

3. Disproportionate share hospital payments: Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments and Medicare uncompensated care payments will decrease by about $115 million for FY 2024.

4. Health equity categories: CMS proposes adding 15 new health equity hospital categorizations for IPPS payments to advance the goals of its Framework for Health Equity initiative.   

5. Social determinants of health codes: To reflect increased resource utilization, the severity designation for the three International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes describing homelessness will change from noncomplication or comorbidity to complication or comorbidity.

6. Rural emergency hospitals: The proposed rule will allow designated rural emergency hospitals to serve as training sites and receive Medicare graduate medical education payments to address concerns over rural hospital closures.

7. COVID treatment add-on payments: If the public health emergency ends in May, add-on payments for discharges involving eligible products like convalescent plasma and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir will expire on Sept. 30.

8. Technology add-on payments: Requests for new technology add-on payments must include a complete, active Food and Drug Administration market authorization application. Beginning with FY 2025 applications, the FDA approval deadline will move from July 1 to May 1.

9. Physician-owned hospitals: To receive Medicare payment for services referred by a physician owner or investor, the hospital must satisfy all requirements of the whole hospital exception or the rural provider exception to the Stark Law. In either case, a hospital may not increase the aggregate number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds above the level it was licensed for on March 23, 2010, unless CMS grants an exception.

10. Electronic clinical quality measures: The new rule will remove and modify several existing electronic clinical quality measures and add three new ones: hospital harm, pressure injury; hospital harm, acute kidney injury; and excessive radiation dose or inadequate image quality for diagnostic CT in adult inpatients.

11. HCAHPS survey: Beginning Jan. 1, 2025, modifications to the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey will extend the data collection period from 42 to 49 days, limit supplemental survey items to 12, and require an official Spanish translation for patients.

12. Safety-net hospitals request for information: CMS seeks public input about the unique challenges faced by safety-net hospitals and potential solutions to ensure that uninsured, underinsured, and other vulnerable populations have access to essential services.

13. LTCH quality reporting: CMS proposes several quality-measure updates, including a functional discharge score measure beginning in FY 2025 and reporting the percentage of patients current with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recommended COVID vaccinations starting in FY 2026.

14. Commenting period: CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule through June 9.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its annual update to the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) and long-term care hospital (LTCH) PPS on April 10, with many changes centered around improving health equity and quality as well as alleviating rural clinician shortages.

“This proposed rule reflects our person-centric approach to better measure health care quality and safety in hospitals to reduce preventable harm and our commitment to ensure that people with Medicare in rural and underserved areas have improved access to high-quality health care,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement.

Here are 14 things to know about the fiscal year (FY) 2024 proposal:

1. New payment rate: Acute-care hospitals that report inpatient quality data and participate in the EHR Meaningful Use program will receive a 2.8% net increase in payment rates. The rate adjustment will send approximately $3.3 billion more funding to hospitals compared with 2023.

2. LTCH payments: CMS projects that the LTCH standard payment rate will increase by 2.9%, whereas discharge payments will decrease by 2.5% or $59 million.

3. Disproportionate share hospital payments: Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments and Medicare uncompensated care payments will decrease by about $115 million for FY 2024.

4. Health equity categories: CMS proposes adding 15 new health equity hospital categorizations for IPPS payments to advance the goals of its Framework for Health Equity initiative.   

5. Social determinants of health codes: To reflect increased resource utilization, the severity designation for the three International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes describing homelessness will change from noncomplication or comorbidity to complication or comorbidity.

6. Rural emergency hospitals: The proposed rule will allow designated rural emergency hospitals to serve as training sites and receive Medicare graduate medical education payments to address concerns over rural hospital closures.

7. COVID treatment add-on payments: If the public health emergency ends in May, add-on payments for discharges involving eligible products like convalescent plasma and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir will expire on Sept. 30.

8. Technology add-on payments: Requests for new technology add-on payments must include a complete, active Food and Drug Administration market authorization application. Beginning with FY 2025 applications, the FDA approval deadline will move from July 1 to May 1.

9. Physician-owned hospitals: To receive Medicare payment for services referred by a physician owner or investor, the hospital must satisfy all requirements of the whole hospital exception or the rural provider exception to the Stark Law. In either case, a hospital may not increase the aggregate number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds above the level it was licensed for on March 23, 2010, unless CMS grants an exception.

10. Electronic clinical quality measures: The new rule will remove and modify several existing electronic clinical quality measures and add three new ones: hospital harm, pressure injury; hospital harm, acute kidney injury; and excessive radiation dose or inadequate image quality for diagnostic CT in adult inpatients.

11. HCAHPS survey: Beginning Jan. 1, 2025, modifications to the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey will extend the data collection period from 42 to 49 days, limit supplemental survey items to 12, and require an official Spanish translation for patients.

12. Safety-net hospitals request for information: CMS seeks public input about the unique challenges faced by safety-net hospitals and potential solutions to ensure that uninsured, underinsured, and other vulnerable populations have access to essential services.

13. LTCH quality reporting: CMS proposes several quality-measure updates, including a functional discharge score measure beginning in FY 2025 and reporting the percentage of patients current with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recommended COVID vaccinations starting in FY 2026.

14. Commenting period: CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule through June 9.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its annual update to the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) and long-term care hospital (LTCH) PPS on April 10, with many changes centered around improving health equity and quality as well as alleviating rural clinician shortages.

“This proposed rule reflects our person-centric approach to better measure health care quality and safety in hospitals to reduce preventable harm and our commitment to ensure that people with Medicare in rural and underserved areas have improved access to high-quality health care,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement.

Here are 14 things to know about the fiscal year (FY) 2024 proposal:

1. New payment rate: Acute-care hospitals that report inpatient quality data and participate in the EHR Meaningful Use program will receive a 2.8% net increase in payment rates. The rate adjustment will send approximately $3.3 billion more funding to hospitals compared with 2023.

2. LTCH payments: CMS projects that the LTCH standard payment rate will increase by 2.9%, whereas discharge payments will decrease by 2.5% or $59 million.

3. Disproportionate share hospital payments: Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments and Medicare uncompensated care payments will decrease by about $115 million for FY 2024.

4. Health equity categories: CMS proposes adding 15 new health equity hospital categorizations for IPPS payments to advance the goals of its Framework for Health Equity initiative.   

5. Social determinants of health codes: To reflect increased resource utilization, the severity designation for the three International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes describing homelessness will change from noncomplication or comorbidity to complication or comorbidity.

6. Rural emergency hospitals: The proposed rule will allow designated rural emergency hospitals to serve as training sites and receive Medicare graduate medical education payments to address concerns over rural hospital closures.

7. COVID treatment add-on payments: If the public health emergency ends in May, add-on payments for discharges involving eligible products like convalescent plasma and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir will expire on Sept. 30.

8. Technology add-on payments: Requests for new technology add-on payments must include a complete, active Food and Drug Administration market authorization application. Beginning with FY 2025 applications, the FDA approval deadline will move from July 1 to May 1.

9. Physician-owned hospitals: To receive Medicare payment for services referred by a physician owner or investor, the hospital must satisfy all requirements of the whole hospital exception or the rural provider exception to the Stark Law. In either case, a hospital may not increase the aggregate number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds above the level it was licensed for on March 23, 2010, unless CMS grants an exception.

10. Electronic clinical quality measures: The new rule will remove and modify several existing electronic clinical quality measures and add three new ones: hospital harm, pressure injury; hospital harm, acute kidney injury; and excessive radiation dose or inadequate image quality for diagnostic CT in adult inpatients.

11. HCAHPS survey: Beginning Jan. 1, 2025, modifications to the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey will extend the data collection period from 42 to 49 days, limit supplemental survey items to 12, and require an official Spanish translation for patients.

12. Safety-net hospitals request for information: CMS seeks public input about the unique challenges faced by safety-net hospitals and potential solutions to ensure that uninsured, underinsured, and other vulnerable populations have access to essential services.

13. LTCH quality reporting: CMS proposes several quality-measure updates, including a functional discharge score measure beginning in FY 2025 and reporting the percentage of patients current with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recommended COVID vaccinations starting in FY 2026.

14. Commenting period: CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule through June 9.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in people with type 2 diabetes, reveals a U.S. study that also suggests switching to coffee, tea, or low-fat milk may diminish these risks.

The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.

The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.

“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.


 

Choice of drink matters

Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.

Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.

There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.

Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”

“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.

Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
 

Expanding the evidence

It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.

Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.

To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.

For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.

Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.

During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.

Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).

In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.

The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.

Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.

The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in people with type 2 diabetes, reveals a U.S. study that also suggests switching to coffee, tea, or low-fat milk may diminish these risks.

The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.

The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.

“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.


 

Choice of drink matters

Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.

Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.

There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.

Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”

“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.

Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
 

Expanding the evidence

It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.

Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.

To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.

For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.

Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.

During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.

Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).

In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.

The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.

Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.

The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in people with type 2 diabetes, reveals a U.S. study that also suggests switching to coffee, tea, or low-fat milk may diminish these risks.

The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.

The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.

“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.


 

Choice of drink matters

Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.

Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.

There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.

Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”

“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.

Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
 

Expanding the evidence

It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.

Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.

To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.

For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.

Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.

During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.

Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).

In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.

The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.

Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.

The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Did doctors’ salaries continue their zesty postpandemic rise in 2022? Are female physicians making pay gains versus their male counterparts that spark optimism for the future?

This infographic examines recent trends in physician compensation, reveals which medical specialties pay better than others, and evaluates the current gender pay gap in medicine. If you’re interested in delving deeper into the data, check out Your Income vs. Your Peers’: Physician Compensation Report 2023.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Did doctors’ salaries continue their zesty postpandemic rise in 2022? Are female physicians making pay gains versus their male counterparts that spark optimism for the future?

This infographic examines recent trends in physician compensation, reveals which medical specialties pay better than others, and evaluates the current gender pay gap in medicine. If you’re interested in delving deeper into the data, check out Your Income vs. Your Peers’: Physician Compensation Report 2023.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Did doctors’ salaries continue their zesty postpandemic rise in 2022? Are female physicians making pay gains versus their male counterparts that spark optimism for the future?

This infographic examines recent trends in physician compensation, reveals which medical specialties pay better than others, and evaluates the current gender pay gap in medicine. If you’re interested in delving deeper into the data, check out Your Income vs. Your Peers’: Physician Compensation Report 2023.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

No matter the size, running a practice is a challenge. By being aware of – and more importantly steering clear of – some common but unrecognized pitfalls, you can increase your odds for success and profitability.

A physician who in the past has led medical groups as both chief medical officer and president, Gerda Maissel, MD, president of My MD Advisor, a private patient advocacy group, has seen the good, bad, and ugly of practice administration. There’s a spectrum of infractions: Anything from doctors making inappropriate jokes with staff or patients, to failing to establish key relationships with other critical entities, says Dr. Maissel.

“Being a good physician who provides value is important in building a practice,” explained Dr. Maissel. “But it is not the be-all and end-all.”

While the number of physician-owned practices is declining, just under 50% are still in private practice, according to the American Medical Association’s 2020 survey. There’s also a continuing trend toward larger practices. Whatever the size, the physicians are responsible for strategy, marketing, building the practice, and maintaining profitability. 

Catherine Lightfoot, CPA, CHBC, president of the National Society of Certified Healthcare Business Consultants (NSCHBC), has her finger on the pulse of what’s right and what’s wrong when it comes to running a medical practice. Although she says there are no hard and fast rules on how to run a thriving medical group, there are common mistakes that physicians often don’t recognize.

Here are the five key mistakes that commonly crop up, and the experts’ thoughts on how to prevent or fix them.
 

1. Failing to engage in outreach activities and community efforts to build your practice.

Yes, physicians earn good reputations through dedicated work, and that often precedes them when it comes to building a practice. But assuming that hanging a shingle backed by strong credentials is all it takes for success is akin to building a website and assuming people will find it organically. Maybe there was a time, in a small community, where this was good enough. But no longer.

It’s important to plan to get your practice and your name known to potential patients. “Most physicians think that means advertising, but that’s not the complete case,” Dr. Maissel said.

Much of the equation involves ensuring availability. This means setting office hours that work for your target audience of patients, and then ensuring you stick to those hours. This extends beyond scheduling your current patients and into referral patients, too. And it’s particularly true while in the building phase of a new practice.

“If one of your colleagues calls with a referral patient, and they consider the matter urgent, you need to heed that,” explained Dr. Maissel. “So have a breadth of availability for these referral cases.” Through word of mouth, you’ll get a good reputation for patient care and availability, and that will go a long way toward helping to grow your practice.

Establishing a culture that doesn’t involve canceling and rescheduling patients is part of the scheduling equation, too. “I’ve seen the full gamut of cancellation policies, ranging from a month’s notice on changes to 3 months’ notice,” said Dr. Maissel. “It all gets at the same issue, which is failing to set up a culture where doctors don’t change their schedules and leave patients hanging.”

In the end, wonky scheduling, cancellations, and a lack of respect for the urgency of referrals can cost a practice. Forge a reputation in reliability and word will get around, in all the right ways.
 

2. Not having enough oversight of your outsourced billing service

Billing is one of the biggest pieces of running a successful and profitable practice, yet too many practices ignore it once they’ve handed it off to a billing company. That can cost you in more ways than one, said Ms. Lightfoot. “Billing changes all the time, and if you’re not monitoring your billing partner, you don’t know what you’re getting,” she said.

Ms. Lightfoot said that a decade ago, billing was much more straightforward – essentially, you did the work and received payment. Today’s complex insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid environment have changed the landscape. “Now you have to fight for every dollar you’re billing,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “Rates get cut all the time, you might miss out on a claim, and the rules are constantly changing.”

The solution for many practices is to outsource billing, which Ms. Lightfoot supports. “They specialize in this, and that’s a great start,” she said. “But it’s not as simple as handing it off and forgetting it.”

Instead, ensure your internal staff is up to date on all things coding and billing so that they can catch what your outsourced billing partner doesn’t. Your internal staff should be prepared to carry out coding, check coding, and stay on top of the billing company if they aren’t processing claims quickly enough. For instance: If there’s a denial, how many times will the billing company go after that money?

Other questions to ask when entering a billing relationship: What does the billing company expect from your practice? Do they communicate what needs to be worked on or fixed? Are they providing you with monthly reports? “You want to make sure you’re getting those reports every month and reading them over carefully,” said Ms. Lightfoot.

This means that if you have a large practice, you should have a point person within your billing department to handle the relationship with your billing partner. If it’s a smaller practice, the task will likely fall to the office manager. The ‘who’ isn’t important, but having someone on the case is.

Another important aspect of this billing relationship is understanding what you’re receiving for your payment. “Sometimes going with the cheapest offer amounts to a billing partner who isn’t working on those claims and denials as much as they should,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “I’ve seen fees anywhere from 4% to 9%, and the lower end can mean you’ll need to chase down every penny.”
 

3. Neglecting to forge the right relationships in the community.

Another common mistake physicians make is failing to develop the professional relationships that will help you thrive. Successful practices need to establish relationships with the right people and organizations. While the occasional afternoon of golf used to serve this purpose, today outreach must go beyond that, said Dr. Maissel. “You need to create relationships with hospitals and hospital-based practices because you may have value to them,” she said. “You should also get into some sort of relationship with your local ACO (Accountable Care Organization) or PHO (Physician Hospital Organization). Identify the leaders there and let them know you exist.”

Establishing these relationships goes beyond that first step of introducing yourself, or you risk losing their benefits. You must also nurture and “fertilize” these relationships in an ongoing fashion. “For years, as the head of employee practice, I had a competitor who would go out of his way to invite me to lunch regularly,” said Dr. Maissel. “When there were opportunities for his group, I would connect him. I wouldn’t have done that had he not worked on our relationship over time.”

The adage of “it’s not what you know but who you know” holds up here. If you don’t do the reach out to the right people and organizations in your community, you will have a harder time succeeding as a practice.
 

4. Hiring the wrong person/a family member for the job.

When starting a new practice, or if you’re running a small practice, it can be tempting to look for affordable or reliable staffing from among family members or friends. That’s fine if your family member or friend is also qualified for the job. If they aren’t, however, you might be setting up for failure.

“When you hire someone without the right qualifications, you need to be willing to train them for the job,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “Doctors don’t have that kind of time.”

Too often, Ms. Lightfoot said, a doctor will have a position like officer manager open and fill it with an in-law, whether he or she is experienced or not. “Now you have someone in the role who is unqualified, and the rest of the office can’t speak up about that because it’s a relative to the lead physician,” she said. “That doesn’t create a good environment for anyone.”

Also, a setup for failure is hiring someone who might be qualified, but not possessing the right personality for the role. A front desk position, for instance, should be held by someone who’s a bit upbeat and able to multitask. “You can’t put a shy, quiet person in that job,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “So, if you see a person with 10 years’ experience in a medical practice, but they’re reserved, what will happen? You must think about this when hiring.”

One PA recalled a small family practice in which the lead physician’s wife was the office manager. To save money, the wife removed lights from the staff restroom and staff lunchroom and declined staff requests for earned vacation. The staff felt unable to speak up, and they – and all new office staff members – ultimately left the practice.
 

5. Overlooking the importance of acting like a professional and respecting your staff.

This one might seem obvious, but many physicians get a bit too comfortable in the office environment, said Dr. Maissel. This can encompass a whole host of bad behaviors, from making inappropriate jokes to staff and patients, to trash-talking colleagues. None of this behavior is acceptable and can set you up for things to go wrong, especially when good labor is hard to come by. “Your staff is made up of people for whom 50 cents an hour is meaningful,” she said. “If they don’t have a warm, supportive office, they will look elsewhere.”

This is especially true of younger people now entering the workforce – they are less tolerant than generations past of egregious behavior. Try to establish a professional, yet nurturing environment for your staff. “Inquire about things that matter to them,” said Dr. Maissel. “Small talk can go a long way. See them as human beings, not cogs in the wheel.”

Inappropriate and uncaring behaviors will give physician leaders a reputation, one that sticks. “The medical community is pretty connected, and if you behave inappropriately enough times, it will circle back to you,” said Dr. Maissel.

Launching, and sustaining, a successful medical practice is never a given, but mistakes are. With the right approach, however, you can avoid these common – and impactful – errors and set your practice up for success.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

No matter the size, running a practice is a challenge. By being aware of – and more importantly steering clear of – some common but unrecognized pitfalls, you can increase your odds for success and profitability.

A physician who in the past has led medical groups as both chief medical officer and president, Gerda Maissel, MD, president of My MD Advisor, a private patient advocacy group, has seen the good, bad, and ugly of practice administration. There’s a spectrum of infractions: Anything from doctors making inappropriate jokes with staff or patients, to failing to establish key relationships with other critical entities, says Dr. Maissel.

“Being a good physician who provides value is important in building a practice,” explained Dr. Maissel. “But it is not the be-all and end-all.”

While the number of physician-owned practices is declining, just under 50% are still in private practice, according to the American Medical Association’s 2020 survey. There’s also a continuing trend toward larger practices. Whatever the size, the physicians are responsible for strategy, marketing, building the practice, and maintaining profitability. 

Catherine Lightfoot, CPA, CHBC, president of the National Society of Certified Healthcare Business Consultants (NSCHBC), has her finger on the pulse of what’s right and what’s wrong when it comes to running a medical practice. Although she says there are no hard and fast rules on how to run a thriving medical group, there are common mistakes that physicians often don’t recognize.

Here are the five key mistakes that commonly crop up, and the experts’ thoughts on how to prevent or fix them.
 

1. Failing to engage in outreach activities and community efforts to build your practice.

Yes, physicians earn good reputations through dedicated work, and that often precedes them when it comes to building a practice. But assuming that hanging a shingle backed by strong credentials is all it takes for success is akin to building a website and assuming people will find it organically. Maybe there was a time, in a small community, where this was good enough. But no longer.

It’s important to plan to get your practice and your name known to potential patients. “Most physicians think that means advertising, but that’s not the complete case,” Dr. Maissel said.

Much of the equation involves ensuring availability. This means setting office hours that work for your target audience of patients, and then ensuring you stick to those hours. This extends beyond scheduling your current patients and into referral patients, too. And it’s particularly true while in the building phase of a new practice.

“If one of your colleagues calls with a referral patient, and they consider the matter urgent, you need to heed that,” explained Dr. Maissel. “So have a breadth of availability for these referral cases.” Through word of mouth, you’ll get a good reputation for patient care and availability, and that will go a long way toward helping to grow your practice.

Establishing a culture that doesn’t involve canceling and rescheduling patients is part of the scheduling equation, too. “I’ve seen the full gamut of cancellation policies, ranging from a month’s notice on changes to 3 months’ notice,” said Dr. Maissel. “It all gets at the same issue, which is failing to set up a culture where doctors don’t change their schedules and leave patients hanging.”

In the end, wonky scheduling, cancellations, and a lack of respect for the urgency of referrals can cost a practice. Forge a reputation in reliability and word will get around, in all the right ways.
 

2. Not having enough oversight of your outsourced billing service

Billing is one of the biggest pieces of running a successful and profitable practice, yet too many practices ignore it once they’ve handed it off to a billing company. That can cost you in more ways than one, said Ms. Lightfoot. “Billing changes all the time, and if you’re not monitoring your billing partner, you don’t know what you’re getting,” she said.

Ms. Lightfoot said that a decade ago, billing was much more straightforward – essentially, you did the work and received payment. Today’s complex insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid environment have changed the landscape. “Now you have to fight for every dollar you’re billing,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “Rates get cut all the time, you might miss out on a claim, and the rules are constantly changing.”

The solution for many practices is to outsource billing, which Ms. Lightfoot supports. “They specialize in this, and that’s a great start,” she said. “But it’s not as simple as handing it off and forgetting it.”

Instead, ensure your internal staff is up to date on all things coding and billing so that they can catch what your outsourced billing partner doesn’t. Your internal staff should be prepared to carry out coding, check coding, and stay on top of the billing company if they aren’t processing claims quickly enough. For instance: If there’s a denial, how many times will the billing company go after that money?

Other questions to ask when entering a billing relationship: What does the billing company expect from your practice? Do they communicate what needs to be worked on or fixed? Are they providing you with monthly reports? “You want to make sure you’re getting those reports every month and reading them over carefully,” said Ms. Lightfoot.

This means that if you have a large practice, you should have a point person within your billing department to handle the relationship with your billing partner. If it’s a smaller practice, the task will likely fall to the office manager. The ‘who’ isn’t important, but having someone on the case is.

Another important aspect of this billing relationship is understanding what you’re receiving for your payment. “Sometimes going with the cheapest offer amounts to a billing partner who isn’t working on those claims and denials as much as they should,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “I’ve seen fees anywhere from 4% to 9%, and the lower end can mean you’ll need to chase down every penny.”
 

3. Neglecting to forge the right relationships in the community.

Another common mistake physicians make is failing to develop the professional relationships that will help you thrive. Successful practices need to establish relationships with the right people and organizations. While the occasional afternoon of golf used to serve this purpose, today outreach must go beyond that, said Dr. Maissel. “You need to create relationships with hospitals and hospital-based practices because you may have value to them,” she said. “You should also get into some sort of relationship with your local ACO (Accountable Care Organization) or PHO (Physician Hospital Organization). Identify the leaders there and let them know you exist.”

Establishing these relationships goes beyond that first step of introducing yourself, or you risk losing their benefits. You must also nurture and “fertilize” these relationships in an ongoing fashion. “For years, as the head of employee practice, I had a competitor who would go out of his way to invite me to lunch regularly,” said Dr. Maissel. “When there were opportunities for his group, I would connect him. I wouldn’t have done that had he not worked on our relationship over time.”

The adage of “it’s not what you know but who you know” holds up here. If you don’t do the reach out to the right people and organizations in your community, you will have a harder time succeeding as a practice.
 

4. Hiring the wrong person/a family member for the job.

When starting a new practice, or if you’re running a small practice, it can be tempting to look for affordable or reliable staffing from among family members or friends. That’s fine if your family member or friend is also qualified for the job. If they aren’t, however, you might be setting up for failure.

“When you hire someone without the right qualifications, you need to be willing to train them for the job,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “Doctors don’t have that kind of time.”

Too often, Ms. Lightfoot said, a doctor will have a position like officer manager open and fill it with an in-law, whether he or she is experienced or not. “Now you have someone in the role who is unqualified, and the rest of the office can’t speak up about that because it’s a relative to the lead physician,” she said. “That doesn’t create a good environment for anyone.”

Also, a setup for failure is hiring someone who might be qualified, but not possessing the right personality for the role. A front desk position, for instance, should be held by someone who’s a bit upbeat and able to multitask. “You can’t put a shy, quiet person in that job,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “So, if you see a person with 10 years’ experience in a medical practice, but they’re reserved, what will happen? You must think about this when hiring.”

One PA recalled a small family practice in which the lead physician’s wife was the office manager. To save money, the wife removed lights from the staff restroom and staff lunchroom and declined staff requests for earned vacation. The staff felt unable to speak up, and they – and all new office staff members – ultimately left the practice.
 

5. Overlooking the importance of acting like a professional and respecting your staff.

This one might seem obvious, but many physicians get a bit too comfortable in the office environment, said Dr. Maissel. This can encompass a whole host of bad behaviors, from making inappropriate jokes to staff and patients, to trash-talking colleagues. None of this behavior is acceptable and can set you up for things to go wrong, especially when good labor is hard to come by. “Your staff is made up of people for whom 50 cents an hour is meaningful,” she said. “If they don’t have a warm, supportive office, they will look elsewhere.”

This is especially true of younger people now entering the workforce – they are less tolerant than generations past of egregious behavior. Try to establish a professional, yet nurturing environment for your staff. “Inquire about things that matter to them,” said Dr. Maissel. “Small talk can go a long way. See them as human beings, not cogs in the wheel.”

Inappropriate and uncaring behaviors will give physician leaders a reputation, one that sticks. “The medical community is pretty connected, and if you behave inappropriately enough times, it will circle back to you,” said Dr. Maissel.

Launching, and sustaining, a successful medical practice is never a given, but mistakes are. With the right approach, however, you can avoid these common – and impactful – errors and set your practice up for success.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

No matter the size, running a practice is a challenge. By being aware of – and more importantly steering clear of – some common but unrecognized pitfalls, you can increase your odds for success and profitability.

A physician who in the past has led medical groups as both chief medical officer and president, Gerda Maissel, MD, president of My MD Advisor, a private patient advocacy group, has seen the good, bad, and ugly of practice administration. There’s a spectrum of infractions: Anything from doctors making inappropriate jokes with staff or patients, to failing to establish key relationships with other critical entities, says Dr. Maissel.

“Being a good physician who provides value is important in building a practice,” explained Dr. Maissel. “But it is not the be-all and end-all.”

While the number of physician-owned practices is declining, just under 50% are still in private practice, according to the American Medical Association’s 2020 survey. There’s also a continuing trend toward larger practices. Whatever the size, the physicians are responsible for strategy, marketing, building the practice, and maintaining profitability. 

Catherine Lightfoot, CPA, CHBC, president of the National Society of Certified Healthcare Business Consultants (NSCHBC), has her finger on the pulse of what’s right and what’s wrong when it comes to running a medical practice. Although she says there are no hard and fast rules on how to run a thriving medical group, there are common mistakes that physicians often don’t recognize.

Here are the five key mistakes that commonly crop up, and the experts’ thoughts on how to prevent or fix them.
 

1. Failing to engage in outreach activities and community efforts to build your practice.

Yes, physicians earn good reputations through dedicated work, and that often precedes them when it comes to building a practice. But assuming that hanging a shingle backed by strong credentials is all it takes for success is akin to building a website and assuming people will find it organically. Maybe there was a time, in a small community, where this was good enough. But no longer.

It’s important to plan to get your practice and your name known to potential patients. “Most physicians think that means advertising, but that’s not the complete case,” Dr. Maissel said.

Much of the equation involves ensuring availability. This means setting office hours that work for your target audience of patients, and then ensuring you stick to those hours. This extends beyond scheduling your current patients and into referral patients, too. And it’s particularly true while in the building phase of a new practice.

“If one of your colleagues calls with a referral patient, and they consider the matter urgent, you need to heed that,” explained Dr. Maissel. “So have a breadth of availability for these referral cases.” Through word of mouth, you’ll get a good reputation for patient care and availability, and that will go a long way toward helping to grow your practice.

Establishing a culture that doesn’t involve canceling and rescheduling patients is part of the scheduling equation, too. “I’ve seen the full gamut of cancellation policies, ranging from a month’s notice on changes to 3 months’ notice,” said Dr. Maissel. “It all gets at the same issue, which is failing to set up a culture where doctors don’t change their schedules and leave patients hanging.”

In the end, wonky scheduling, cancellations, and a lack of respect for the urgency of referrals can cost a practice. Forge a reputation in reliability and word will get around, in all the right ways.
 

2. Not having enough oversight of your outsourced billing service

Billing is one of the biggest pieces of running a successful and profitable practice, yet too many practices ignore it once they’ve handed it off to a billing company. That can cost you in more ways than one, said Ms. Lightfoot. “Billing changes all the time, and if you’re not monitoring your billing partner, you don’t know what you’re getting,” she said.

Ms. Lightfoot said that a decade ago, billing was much more straightforward – essentially, you did the work and received payment. Today’s complex insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid environment have changed the landscape. “Now you have to fight for every dollar you’re billing,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “Rates get cut all the time, you might miss out on a claim, and the rules are constantly changing.”

The solution for many practices is to outsource billing, which Ms. Lightfoot supports. “They specialize in this, and that’s a great start,” she said. “But it’s not as simple as handing it off and forgetting it.”

Instead, ensure your internal staff is up to date on all things coding and billing so that they can catch what your outsourced billing partner doesn’t. Your internal staff should be prepared to carry out coding, check coding, and stay on top of the billing company if they aren’t processing claims quickly enough. For instance: If there’s a denial, how many times will the billing company go after that money?

Other questions to ask when entering a billing relationship: What does the billing company expect from your practice? Do they communicate what needs to be worked on or fixed? Are they providing you with monthly reports? “You want to make sure you’re getting those reports every month and reading them over carefully,” said Ms. Lightfoot.

This means that if you have a large practice, you should have a point person within your billing department to handle the relationship with your billing partner. If it’s a smaller practice, the task will likely fall to the office manager. The ‘who’ isn’t important, but having someone on the case is.

Another important aspect of this billing relationship is understanding what you’re receiving for your payment. “Sometimes going with the cheapest offer amounts to a billing partner who isn’t working on those claims and denials as much as they should,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “I’ve seen fees anywhere from 4% to 9%, and the lower end can mean you’ll need to chase down every penny.”
 

3. Neglecting to forge the right relationships in the community.

Another common mistake physicians make is failing to develop the professional relationships that will help you thrive. Successful practices need to establish relationships with the right people and organizations. While the occasional afternoon of golf used to serve this purpose, today outreach must go beyond that, said Dr. Maissel. “You need to create relationships with hospitals and hospital-based practices because you may have value to them,” she said. “You should also get into some sort of relationship with your local ACO (Accountable Care Organization) or PHO (Physician Hospital Organization). Identify the leaders there and let them know you exist.”

Establishing these relationships goes beyond that first step of introducing yourself, or you risk losing their benefits. You must also nurture and “fertilize” these relationships in an ongoing fashion. “For years, as the head of employee practice, I had a competitor who would go out of his way to invite me to lunch regularly,” said Dr. Maissel. “When there were opportunities for his group, I would connect him. I wouldn’t have done that had he not worked on our relationship over time.”

The adage of “it’s not what you know but who you know” holds up here. If you don’t do the reach out to the right people and organizations in your community, you will have a harder time succeeding as a practice.
 

4. Hiring the wrong person/a family member for the job.

When starting a new practice, or if you’re running a small practice, it can be tempting to look for affordable or reliable staffing from among family members or friends. That’s fine if your family member or friend is also qualified for the job. If they aren’t, however, you might be setting up for failure.

“When you hire someone without the right qualifications, you need to be willing to train them for the job,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “Doctors don’t have that kind of time.”

Too often, Ms. Lightfoot said, a doctor will have a position like officer manager open and fill it with an in-law, whether he or she is experienced or not. “Now you have someone in the role who is unqualified, and the rest of the office can’t speak up about that because it’s a relative to the lead physician,” she said. “That doesn’t create a good environment for anyone.”

Also, a setup for failure is hiring someone who might be qualified, but not possessing the right personality for the role. A front desk position, for instance, should be held by someone who’s a bit upbeat and able to multitask. “You can’t put a shy, quiet person in that job,” said Ms. Lightfoot. “So, if you see a person with 10 years’ experience in a medical practice, but they’re reserved, what will happen? You must think about this when hiring.”

One PA recalled a small family practice in which the lead physician’s wife was the office manager. To save money, the wife removed lights from the staff restroom and staff lunchroom and declined staff requests for earned vacation. The staff felt unable to speak up, and they – and all new office staff members – ultimately left the practice.
 

5. Overlooking the importance of acting like a professional and respecting your staff.

This one might seem obvious, but many physicians get a bit too comfortable in the office environment, said Dr. Maissel. This can encompass a whole host of bad behaviors, from making inappropriate jokes to staff and patients, to trash-talking colleagues. None of this behavior is acceptable and can set you up for things to go wrong, especially when good labor is hard to come by. “Your staff is made up of people for whom 50 cents an hour is meaningful,” she said. “If they don’t have a warm, supportive office, they will look elsewhere.”

This is especially true of younger people now entering the workforce – they are less tolerant than generations past of egregious behavior. Try to establish a professional, yet nurturing environment for your staff. “Inquire about things that matter to them,” said Dr. Maissel. “Small talk can go a long way. See them as human beings, not cogs in the wheel.”

Inappropriate and uncaring behaviors will give physician leaders a reputation, one that sticks. “The medical community is pretty connected, and if you behave inappropriately enough times, it will circle back to you,” said Dr. Maissel.

Launching, and sustaining, a successful medical practice is never a given, but mistakes are. With the right approach, however, you can avoid these common – and impactful – errors and set your practice up for success.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.