Dermatology News

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), an analysis of three clinical trials reports.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD, in January 2022. This study analyzed the adolescent data in three double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trials, which included adults and 552 adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age with moderate to severe AD in more than 20 countries in Europe, North and South America, the Middle East, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region from July 2018 through December 2020.

In the studies, “treatment of moderate to severe AD in adolescents with upadacitinib was effective and generally well tolerated, with an overall efficacy and safety profile similar to that observed in adults, and patient-reported outcomes indicated an overall better health-related quality of life compared with placebo,” lead study author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at Northwestern University, Chicago, and her colleagues write in JAMA Dermatology.

Adolescents in the three studies – Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up – received once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, 30 mg, or placebo. All participants in AD Up used topical corticosteroids.

At 16 weeks, in Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up, respectively, a greater proportion of adolescents improved by at least 75% in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) with upadacitinib 15 mg (73%, 69%, 63%); and with upadacitinib 30 mg (78%, 73%, 84%), compared with placebo (12%, 13%, 30%), (P < .001 for all comparisons vs. placebo).

Upadacitinib was generally well tolerated among the adolescents, with mild or moderate acne being the most common adverse event, reported in 10%-13% of those on 15 mg and 15%-16% of those on 30 mg vs. 2%-3% of those on placebo.

Asked to comment on the study, Peck Ong, MD, a pediatric allergist and immunologist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said that he was not surprised by the drug’s effectiveness because JAK inhibitors are potent immunosuppressants. Strengths of the studies include the many pediatric participants, its international reach, and its use of standardized and validated measures, said Dr. Ong, who was not involved in the study.

“The effect of JAK inhibitors is more specific than traditional immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine and methotrexate but not as specific as biologics; therefore, long-term safety data are needed,” he advised. “16 weeks is a very short time to study a chronic disease like atopic dermatitis. We need safety data longer than 1 year.”

Given the disease’s potential impact on self-esteem, sleep, and other important areas of life, Sean Reynolds, MBBCH, a pediatric dermatologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), welcomed the data on the newer pharmacologic agents.

“FDA-approved systemic treatment options for adolescents with AD are currently limited, which necessitates studies such as this that explore additional treatment options,” said Dr. Reynolds, who also was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

He added that oral upadacitinib may especially help patients who have not found relief with other topical or systemic treatments or who are needle phobic. While the overall efficacy and relatively mild side effects for most patients taking upadacitinib in the trials are encouraging, “the long-term efficacy and side effects in this population require further study, especially considering the limited systemic AD treatment options available in this age group,” he added.

“Given the reported use of other JAK inhibitors to treat myriad inflammatory skin conditions beyond atopic dermatitis, the potential use of upadacitinib and other JAK inhibitors to treat these skin diseases in children and adolescents represents an exciting area for future study in the field of pediatric dermatology,” Dr. Reynolds noted.

The study was funded by AbbVie, the developer and manufacturer of upadacitinib. Dr. Paller and almost all other authors reported relevant financial relationships with AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ong reported serving on an AbbVie advisory board, and Dr. Reynolds reported no conflict of interest with the study.

The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), an analysis of three clinical trials reports.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD, in January 2022. This study analyzed the adolescent data in three double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trials, which included adults and 552 adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age with moderate to severe AD in more than 20 countries in Europe, North and South America, the Middle East, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region from July 2018 through December 2020.

In the studies, “treatment of moderate to severe AD in adolescents with upadacitinib was effective and generally well tolerated, with an overall efficacy and safety profile similar to that observed in adults, and patient-reported outcomes indicated an overall better health-related quality of life compared with placebo,” lead study author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at Northwestern University, Chicago, and her colleagues write in JAMA Dermatology.

Adolescents in the three studies – Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up – received once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, 30 mg, or placebo. All participants in AD Up used topical corticosteroids.

At 16 weeks, in Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up, respectively, a greater proportion of adolescents improved by at least 75% in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) with upadacitinib 15 mg (73%, 69%, 63%); and with upadacitinib 30 mg (78%, 73%, 84%), compared with placebo (12%, 13%, 30%), (P < .001 for all comparisons vs. placebo).

Upadacitinib was generally well tolerated among the adolescents, with mild or moderate acne being the most common adverse event, reported in 10%-13% of those on 15 mg and 15%-16% of those on 30 mg vs. 2%-3% of those on placebo.

Asked to comment on the study, Peck Ong, MD, a pediatric allergist and immunologist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said that he was not surprised by the drug’s effectiveness because JAK inhibitors are potent immunosuppressants. Strengths of the studies include the many pediatric participants, its international reach, and its use of standardized and validated measures, said Dr. Ong, who was not involved in the study.

“The effect of JAK inhibitors is more specific than traditional immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine and methotrexate but not as specific as biologics; therefore, long-term safety data are needed,” he advised. “16 weeks is a very short time to study a chronic disease like atopic dermatitis. We need safety data longer than 1 year.”

Given the disease’s potential impact on self-esteem, sleep, and other important areas of life, Sean Reynolds, MBBCH, a pediatric dermatologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), welcomed the data on the newer pharmacologic agents.

“FDA-approved systemic treatment options for adolescents with AD are currently limited, which necessitates studies such as this that explore additional treatment options,” said Dr. Reynolds, who also was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

He added that oral upadacitinib may especially help patients who have not found relief with other topical or systemic treatments or who are needle phobic. While the overall efficacy and relatively mild side effects for most patients taking upadacitinib in the trials are encouraging, “the long-term efficacy and side effects in this population require further study, especially considering the limited systemic AD treatment options available in this age group,” he added.

“Given the reported use of other JAK inhibitors to treat myriad inflammatory skin conditions beyond atopic dermatitis, the potential use of upadacitinib and other JAK inhibitors to treat these skin diseases in children and adolescents represents an exciting area for future study in the field of pediatric dermatology,” Dr. Reynolds noted.

The study was funded by AbbVie, the developer and manufacturer of upadacitinib. Dr. Paller and almost all other authors reported relevant financial relationships with AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ong reported serving on an AbbVie advisory board, and Dr. Reynolds reported no conflict of interest with the study.

The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), an analysis of three clinical trials reports.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD, in January 2022. This study analyzed the adolescent data in three double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trials, which included adults and 552 adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age with moderate to severe AD in more than 20 countries in Europe, North and South America, the Middle East, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region from July 2018 through December 2020.

In the studies, “treatment of moderate to severe AD in adolescents with upadacitinib was effective and generally well tolerated, with an overall efficacy and safety profile similar to that observed in adults, and patient-reported outcomes indicated an overall better health-related quality of life compared with placebo,” lead study author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at Northwestern University, Chicago, and her colleagues write in JAMA Dermatology.

Adolescents in the three studies – Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up – received once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, 30 mg, or placebo. All participants in AD Up used topical corticosteroids.

At 16 weeks, in Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up, respectively, a greater proportion of adolescents improved by at least 75% in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) with upadacitinib 15 mg (73%, 69%, 63%); and with upadacitinib 30 mg (78%, 73%, 84%), compared with placebo (12%, 13%, 30%), (P < .001 for all comparisons vs. placebo).

Upadacitinib was generally well tolerated among the adolescents, with mild or moderate acne being the most common adverse event, reported in 10%-13% of those on 15 mg and 15%-16% of those on 30 mg vs. 2%-3% of those on placebo.

Asked to comment on the study, Peck Ong, MD, a pediatric allergist and immunologist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said that he was not surprised by the drug’s effectiveness because JAK inhibitors are potent immunosuppressants. Strengths of the studies include the many pediatric participants, its international reach, and its use of standardized and validated measures, said Dr. Ong, who was not involved in the study.

“The effect of JAK inhibitors is more specific than traditional immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine and methotrexate but not as specific as biologics; therefore, long-term safety data are needed,” he advised. “16 weeks is a very short time to study a chronic disease like atopic dermatitis. We need safety data longer than 1 year.”

Given the disease’s potential impact on self-esteem, sleep, and other important areas of life, Sean Reynolds, MBBCH, a pediatric dermatologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), welcomed the data on the newer pharmacologic agents.

“FDA-approved systemic treatment options for adolescents with AD are currently limited, which necessitates studies such as this that explore additional treatment options,” said Dr. Reynolds, who also was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

He added that oral upadacitinib may especially help patients who have not found relief with other topical or systemic treatments or who are needle phobic. While the overall efficacy and relatively mild side effects for most patients taking upadacitinib in the trials are encouraging, “the long-term efficacy and side effects in this population require further study, especially considering the limited systemic AD treatment options available in this age group,” he added.

“Given the reported use of other JAK inhibitors to treat myriad inflammatory skin conditions beyond atopic dermatitis, the potential use of upadacitinib and other JAK inhibitors to treat these skin diseases in children and adolescents represents an exciting area for future study in the field of pediatric dermatology,” Dr. Reynolds noted.

The study was funded by AbbVie, the developer and manufacturer of upadacitinib. Dr. Paller and almost all other authors reported relevant financial relationships with AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ong reported serving on an AbbVie advisory board, and Dr. Reynolds reported no conflict of interest with the study.

PHOENIX – Of the federal and state malpractice lawsuits filed against dermatologists between 2011 and 2022, half were related to accidental injury, followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses, and the defendants were more likely to be male.

Those are among key findings from a study that aimed to determine the reasons patients pursue litigation against dermatologists.

“The number of lawsuits against physicians continues to climb annually,” Young Lim, MD, PhD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the results were presented during an abstract session. “Depending on the study, anywhere between 75 to 99 percent of physicians will face a lawsuit by age 65. A clear understanding of prior litigations will help mitigate similar errors in future practice and promote safer, higher quality care.”

Dr. Lim, a dermatology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, along with Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, and H. Ray Jalian, MD, a cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Los Angeles, used two large national database repositories, WestlawNext and LexisNexis, to retrospectively analyze legal documents following a query using “dermatology” and “dermatologist” as search terms to capture all variety of litigations. They excluded cases in which litigation did not involve patient care as well as those in which the dermatologist was the plaintiff and those in which the dermatologist was involved as a third party.

The final analysis consisted of 54 claims, comprising 43 state and 11 federal cases. Of the 54 cases, 35 involved a male defendant, 12 involved a female defendant, and 7 cases either did not specify the gender of the defendant or involved multiple defendants. Of the 35 cases involving a male defendant, 23 (66%) were brought by female plaintiffs.

Most cases (49, or 91%) involved a defendant dermatologist in private practice while the remaining 5 involved a defendant dermatologist in an academic setting.

The most common reason for litigation was accidental injury (27 cases, or 50%), followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses (22 cases, or 41%). Five cases resulted from the dermatologist failing to communicate important information, such as postop care instructions or obtaining informed consent.

Of all 54 cases 30 (56%) were dismissed prior to trial, while 24 (44%) resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. According to Dr. Lim, payout information was available for only five cases, and ranged from $15,000 (injury from laser) to $1,950,000 (delayed diagnosis of malignant melanoma).

“While lawsuits from patients against dermatologists largely involve injury from elective procedures, clinicians should practice caution regarding missed or delayed diagnoses when practicing medical dermatology,” the authors concluded in their abstract. “Ensuring that critical information is shared with patients and obtaining proper written consent will also safeguard against easily-avoidable litigations.”

Christopher B. Zachary, MBBS, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings are a reminder that lack of attention to the most simply performed aspects of care can be the reasons patients will seek medical malpractice redress.

“Consent requires careful and thoughtful explanation of a planned procedure, which should then be recorded in the chart to avoid future confusion,” Dr. Zachary told this news organization. “A patient’s signature on a consent form obtained by a staff member is clearly inadequate if not accompanied by a clear and understandable preoperative discussion. Words, images, video are all elements that aid patients’ comprehension of a planned procedure. And postoperative instructions given to the patients while on the laser table are commonly forgotten by the patient and must be accompanied by written advice summary. Patients will frequently misremember instructions and can be overwhelmed by medical jargon.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Zachary reported having relevant financial disclosures.

PHOENIX – Of the federal and state malpractice lawsuits filed against dermatologists between 2011 and 2022, half were related to accidental injury, followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses, and the defendants were more likely to be male.

Those are among key findings from a study that aimed to determine the reasons patients pursue litigation against dermatologists.

“The number of lawsuits against physicians continues to climb annually,” Young Lim, MD, PhD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the results were presented during an abstract session. “Depending on the study, anywhere between 75 to 99 percent of physicians will face a lawsuit by age 65. A clear understanding of prior litigations will help mitigate similar errors in future practice and promote safer, higher quality care.”

Dr. Lim, a dermatology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, along with Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, and H. Ray Jalian, MD, a cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Los Angeles, used two large national database repositories, WestlawNext and LexisNexis, to retrospectively analyze legal documents following a query using “dermatology” and “dermatologist” as search terms to capture all variety of litigations. They excluded cases in which litigation did not involve patient care as well as those in which the dermatologist was the plaintiff and those in which the dermatologist was involved as a third party.

The final analysis consisted of 54 claims, comprising 43 state and 11 federal cases. Of the 54 cases, 35 involved a male defendant, 12 involved a female defendant, and 7 cases either did not specify the gender of the defendant or involved multiple defendants. Of the 35 cases involving a male defendant, 23 (66%) were brought by female plaintiffs.

Most cases (49, or 91%) involved a defendant dermatologist in private practice while the remaining 5 involved a defendant dermatologist in an academic setting.

The most common reason for litigation was accidental injury (27 cases, or 50%), followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses (22 cases, or 41%). Five cases resulted from the dermatologist failing to communicate important information, such as postop care instructions or obtaining informed consent.

Of all 54 cases 30 (56%) were dismissed prior to trial, while 24 (44%) resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. According to Dr. Lim, payout information was available for only five cases, and ranged from $15,000 (injury from laser) to $1,950,000 (delayed diagnosis of malignant melanoma).

“While lawsuits from patients against dermatologists largely involve injury from elective procedures, clinicians should practice caution regarding missed or delayed diagnoses when practicing medical dermatology,” the authors concluded in their abstract. “Ensuring that critical information is shared with patients and obtaining proper written consent will also safeguard against easily-avoidable litigations.”

Christopher B. Zachary, MBBS, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings are a reminder that lack of attention to the most simply performed aspects of care can be the reasons patients will seek medical malpractice redress.

“Consent requires careful and thoughtful explanation of a planned procedure, which should then be recorded in the chart to avoid future confusion,” Dr. Zachary told this news organization. “A patient’s signature on a consent form obtained by a staff member is clearly inadequate if not accompanied by a clear and understandable preoperative discussion. Words, images, video are all elements that aid patients’ comprehension of a planned procedure. And postoperative instructions given to the patients while on the laser table are commonly forgotten by the patient and must be accompanied by written advice summary. Patients will frequently misremember instructions and can be overwhelmed by medical jargon.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Zachary reported having relevant financial disclosures.

PHOENIX – Of the federal and state malpractice lawsuits filed against dermatologists between 2011 and 2022, half were related to accidental injury, followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses, and the defendants were more likely to be male.

Those are among key findings from a study that aimed to determine the reasons patients pursue litigation against dermatologists.

“The number of lawsuits against physicians continues to climb annually,” Young Lim, MD, PhD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the results were presented during an abstract session. “Depending on the study, anywhere between 75 to 99 percent of physicians will face a lawsuit by age 65. A clear understanding of prior litigations will help mitigate similar errors in future practice and promote safer, higher quality care.”

Dr. Lim, a dermatology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, along with Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, and H. Ray Jalian, MD, a cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Los Angeles, used two large national database repositories, WestlawNext and LexisNexis, to retrospectively analyze legal documents following a query using “dermatology” and “dermatologist” as search terms to capture all variety of litigations. They excluded cases in which litigation did not involve patient care as well as those in which the dermatologist was the plaintiff and those in which the dermatologist was involved as a third party.

The final analysis consisted of 54 claims, comprising 43 state and 11 federal cases. Of the 54 cases, 35 involved a male defendant, 12 involved a female defendant, and 7 cases either did not specify the gender of the defendant or involved multiple defendants. Of the 35 cases involving a male defendant, 23 (66%) were brought by female plaintiffs.

Most cases (49, or 91%) involved a defendant dermatologist in private practice while the remaining 5 involved a defendant dermatologist in an academic setting.

The most common reason for litigation was accidental injury (27 cases, or 50%), followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses (22 cases, or 41%). Five cases resulted from the dermatologist failing to communicate important information, such as postop care instructions or obtaining informed consent.

Of all 54 cases 30 (56%) were dismissed prior to trial, while 24 (44%) resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. According to Dr. Lim, payout information was available for only five cases, and ranged from $15,000 (injury from laser) to $1,950,000 (delayed diagnosis of malignant melanoma).

“While lawsuits from patients against dermatologists largely involve injury from elective procedures, clinicians should practice caution regarding missed or delayed diagnoses when practicing medical dermatology,” the authors concluded in their abstract. “Ensuring that critical information is shared with patients and obtaining proper written consent will also safeguard against easily-avoidable litigations.”

Christopher B. Zachary, MBBS, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings are a reminder that lack of attention to the most simply performed aspects of care can be the reasons patients will seek medical malpractice redress.

“Consent requires careful and thoughtful explanation of a planned procedure, which should then be recorded in the chart to avoid future confusion,” Dr. Zachary told this news organization. “A patient’s signature on a consent form obtained by a staff member is clearly inadequate if not accompanied by a clear and understandable preoperative discussion. Words, images, video are all elements that aid patients’ comprehension of a planned procedure. And postoperative instructions given to the patients while on the laser table are commonly forgotten by the patient and must be accompanied by written advice summary. Patients will frequently misremember instructions and can be overwhelmed by medical jargon.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Zachary reported having relevant financial disclosures.

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 position paper by the National Psoriasis Foundation’s Telemedicine Task Force outlines key principles and practices for managing psoriatic disease via telemedicine.

The success of telemedicine in managing chronic inflammatory skin conditions including psoriasis during the COVID-19 pandemic “highlighted that teledermatology can be used beyond the context of a global health crisis to provide continuity of care and improve access to health care more broadly,” the task force wrote in a paper published online in JAAD International.

Jean-philippe WALLET/Getty Images

Co–senior author George Han, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the impetus for the guidelines came from NPF patient advocates, who realized that the organization needed something to take to payers and governmental agencies to advocate for better access to dermatologic care. He is associate professor of dermatology and director of teledermatology at the Hofstra/Northwell department of dermatology, Hyde Park, New York.

“We realized that, in many places around the country, people don’t have access to dermatology.” In upstate New York, said Dr. Han, his anecdotal research has revealed wait times of 6 months or more.

As a guiding principle, the authors pronounce teledermatology “a reasonable alternative for providing long-term management of patients with psoriasis.” Research shows that nearly all dermatologists used teledermatology during the pandemic, the authors noted, and that well-run programs improve Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores and other measures on par with in-person care. Telemedicine may be especially useful for initial visits, they added, particularly when distance, patient incapacity, and circumstances prevent face-to-face evaluation.

Additional position statements emphasize that teledermatology should support rather than supplant in-person visits, and that this balance may be particularly important in cases involving psoriatic arthritis (PsA). “Even though we can’t do a physical exam and palpate some of those joints in person,” said Dr. Han, “tools have been developed that, through a series of questions the patient can answer, can guide you towards whether there is a high index of suspicion for psoriatic arthritis.” Such patients require in-person evaluation with urgency, he said, because delays in PsA diagnosis and treatment can lead to irreversible joint damage and significant functional impairment.

Another motivation for producing the guidelines, said Dr. Han, was that, even when underserved patients get a dermatology appointment, some providers may not have all the latest tools or medicines available for treating psoriasis. In such cases, telemedicine may allow dermatologists specializing in psoriasis care to extend their reach in comanaging patients with primary care physicians and community dermatologists.

Before the appointment, guidelines suggest determining what form of teledermatology will best suit each patient. Authors recommended gauging patients’ savviness with computers and cameras, and counseling patients regarding available virtual evaluation tools – such as live video visits, store-and-forward photo strategies, and assessment-tool training videos.

A subsequent guideline underscores the importance of continuously improving technology to support expeditious image capture and workflows that emulate in-person practice. Dr. Han explained, “we wanted to make sure that on the back end there’s adequate support such that – if through teledermatology, we determine that the patient should get, say, a systemic treatment – the patient is able to get the appropriate lab tests, get the medicine, and know how to inject it.”

Regarding reimbursement, Dr. Han said that policies varied prepandemic, but many commercial insurers covered telemedicine at a rate 20% lower than the in-person rate. During the pandemic, he said, insurers shifted to provide the higher rate for telemedicine, consistent with policies adopted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“There are differences in coverage and reimbursement from plan to plan,” Dr. Han added. “And even within the same plan, there are carve-outs so that some plans don’t allow certain services. The big picture is that for the most part these services are covered at a level comparable to an in-person visit at present.”

With the Department of Health & Human Services’ public health emergency declaration expiring in May, he said, physicians have worried that some of the allowances made by CMS – such as lifting requirements that Medicare patients in rural areas be seen at care sites – will expire. “It seems that some of those limitations have been addressed, and those allowances are going to be extended until Congress is able to pass something that gives us durable access to telemedicine care. We think that based on the current environment telemedicine is here to stay.”

The study was funded by the NPF. Dr. Han has been an investigator, adviser, speaker, or researcher for AbbVie, Amgen, Apogee Therapeutics, Arcutis, Athenex, Bausch Health, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CeraVe, Dermavant, DermTech, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, L’Oreal, MC2 Therapeutics, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, PellePharm, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, SUN Pharmaceuticals, and UCB.

A position paper by the National Psoriasis Foundation’s Telemedicine Task Force outlines key principles and practices for managing psoriatic disease via telemedicine.

The success of telemedicine in managing chronic inflammatory skin conditions including psoriasis during the COVID-19 pandemic “highlighted that teledermatology can be used beyond the context of a global health crisis to provide continuity of care and improve access to health care more broadly,” the task force wrote in a paper published online in JAAD International.

Jean-philippe WALLET/Getty Images

Co–senior author George Han, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the impetus for the guidelines came from NPF patient advocates, who realized that the organization needed something to take to payers and governmental agencies to advocate for better access to dermatologic care. He is associate professor of dermatology and director of teledermatology at the Hofstra/Northwell department of dermatology, Hyde Park, New York.

“We realized that, in many places around the country, people don’t have access to dermatology.” In upstate New York, said Dr. Han, his anecdotal research has revealed wait times of 6 months or more.

As a guiding principle, the authors pronounce teledermatology “a reasonable alternative for providing long-term management of patients with psoriasis.” Research shows that nearly all dermatologists used teledermatology during the pandemic, the authors noted, and that well-run programs improve Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores and other measures on par with in-person care. Telemedicine may be especially useful for initial visits, they added, particularly when distance, patient incapacity, and circumstances prevent face-to-face evaluation.

Additional position statements emphasize that teledermatology should support rather than supplant in-person visits, and that this balance may be particularly important in cases involving psoriatic arthritis (PsA). “Even though we can’t do a physical exam and palpate some of those joints in person,” said Dr. Han, “tools have been developed that, through a series of questions the patient can answer, can guide you towards whether there is a high index of suspicion for psoriatic arthritis.” Such patients require in-person evaluation with urgency, he said, because delays in PsA diagnosis and treatment can lead to irreversible joint damage and significant functional impairment.

Another motivation for producing the guidelines, said Dr. Han, was that, even when underserved patients get a dermatology appointment, some providers may not have all the latest tools or medicines available for treating psoriasis. In such cases, telemedicine may allow dermatologists specializing in psoriasis care to extend their reach in comanaging patients with primary care physicians and community dermatologists.

Before the appointment, guidelines suggest determining what form of teledermatology will best suit each patient. Authors recommended gauging patients’ savviness with computers and cameras, and counseling patients regarding available virtual evaluation tools – such as live video visits, store-and-forward photo strategies, and assessment-tool training videos.

A subsequent guideline underscores the importance of continuously improving technology to support expeditious image capture and workflows that emulate in-person practice. Dr. Han explained, “we wanted to make sure that on the back end there’s adequate support such that – if through teledermatology, we determine that the patient should get, say, a systemic treatment – the patient is able to get the appropriate lab tests, get the medicine, and know how to inject it.”

Regarding reimbursement, Dr. Han said that policies varied prepandemic, but many commercial insurers covered telemedicine at a rate 20% lower than the in-person rate. During the pandemic, he said, insurers shifted to provide the higher rate for telemedicine, consistent with policies adopted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“There are differences in coverage and reimbursement from plan to plan,” Dr. Han added. “And even within the same plan, there are carve-outs so that some plans don’t allow certain services. The big picture is that for the most part these services are covered at a level comparable to an in-person visit at present.”

With the Department of Health & Human Services’ public health emergency declaration expiring in May, he said, physicians have worried that some of the allowances made by CMS – such as lifting requirements that Medicare patients in rural areas be seen at care sites – will expire. “It seems that some of those limitations have been addressed, and those allowances are going to be extended until Congress is able to pass something that gives us durable access to telemedicine care. We think that based on the current environment telemedicine is here to stay.”

The study was funded by the NPF. Dr. Han has been an investigator, adviser, speaker, or researcher for AbbVie, Amgen, Apogee Therapeutics, Arcutis, Athenex, Bausch Health, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CeraVe, Dermavant, DermTech, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, L’Oreal, MC2 Therapeutics, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, PellePharm, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, SUN Pharmaceuticals, and UCB.

A position paper by the National Psoriasis Foundation’s Telemedicine Task Force outlines key principles and practices for managing psoriatic disease via telemedicine.

The success of telemedicine in managing chronic inflammatory skin conditions including psoriasis during the COVID-19 pandemic “highlighted that teledermatology can be used beyond the context of a global health crisis to provide continuity of care and improve access to health care more broadly,” the task force wrote in a paper published online in JAAD International.

Jean-philippe WALLET/Getty Images

Co–senior author George Han, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the impetus for the guidelines came from NPF patient advocates, who realized that the organization needed something to take to payers and governmental agencies to advocate for better access to dermatologic care. He is associate professor of dermatology and director of teledermatology at the Hofstra/Northwell department of dermatology, Hyde Park, New York.

“We realized that, in many places around the country, people don’t have access to dermatology.” In upstate New York, said Dr. Han, his anecdotal research has revealed wait times of 6 months or more.

As a guiding principle, the authors pronounce teledermatology “a reasonable alternative for providing long-term management of patients with psoriasis.” Research shows that nearly all dermatologists used teledermatology during the pandemic, the authors noted, and that well-run programs improve Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores and other measures on par with in-person care. Telemedicine may be especially useful for initial visits, they added, particularly when distance, patient incapacity, and circumstances prevent face-to-face evaluation.

Additional position statements emphasize that teledermatology should support rather than supplant in-person visits, and that this balance may be particularly important in cases involving psoriatic arthritis (PsA). “Even though we can’t do a physical exam and palpate some of those joints in person,” said Dr. Han, “tools have been developed that, through a series of questions the patient can answer, can guide you towards whether there is a high index of suspicion for psoriatic arthritis.” Such patients require in-person evaluation with urgency, he said, because delays in PsA diagnosis and treatment can lead to irreversible joint damage and significant functional impairment.

Another motivation for producing the guidelines, said Dr. Han, was that, even when underserved patients get a dermatology appointment, some providers may not have all the latest tools or medicines available for treating psoriasis. In such cases, telemedicine may allow dermatologists specializing in psoriasis care to extend their reach in comanaging patients with primary care physicians and community dermatologists.

Before the appointment, guidelines suggest determining what form of teledermatology will best suit each patient. Authors recommended gauging patients’ savviness with computers and cameras, and counseling patients regarding available virtual evaluation tools – such as live video visits, store-and-forward photo strategies, and assessment-tool training videos.

A subsequent guideline underscores the importance of continuously improving technology to support expeditious image capture and workflows that emulate in-person practice. Dr. Han explained, “we wanted to make sure that on the back end there’s adequate support such that – if through teledermatology, we determine that the patient should get, say, a systemic treatment – the patient is able to get the appropriate lab tests, get the medicine, and know how to inject it.”

Regarding reimbursement, Dr. Han said that policies varied prepandemic, but many commercial insurers covered telemedicine at a rate 20% lower than the in-person rate. During the pandemic, he said, insurers shifted to provide the higher rate for telemedicine, consistent with policies adopted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“There are differences in coverage and reimbursement from plan to plan,” Dr. Han added. “And even within the same plan, there are carve-outs so that some plans don’t allow certain services. The big picture is that for the most part these services are covered at a level comparable to an in-person visit at present.”

With the Department of Health & Human Services’ public health emergency declaration expiring in May, he said, physicians have worried that some of the allowances made by CMS – such as lifting requirements that Medicare patients in rural areas be seen at care sites – will expire. “It seems that some of those limitations have been addressed, and those allowances are going to be extended until Congress is able to pass something that gives us durable access to telemedicine care. We think that based on the current environment telemedicine is here to stay.”

The study was funded by the NPF. Dr. Han has been an investigator, adviser, speaker, or researcher for AbbVie, Amgen, Apogee Therapeutics, Arcutis, Athenex, Bausch Health, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CeraVe, Dermavant, DermTech, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, L’Oreal, MC2 Therapeutics, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, PellePharm, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, SUN Pharmaceuticals, and UCB.

PHOENIX – Burns, dyspigmentation, and scarring were the three most common complications from the use of ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers reported to the Food and Drug Administration between 2013 and 2022, an analysis of medical device reports (MDRs) over a decade showed.

Dr. Hashemi

The researchers limited their query to MDRs related to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. The query was performed in January 2023 using a comprehensive list of product names and manufacturers.

The initial search yielded 240 MDRs, which were individually reviewed for duplicate records or insufficient data, and the final analysis included 165 MDRs. The 10 most reported adverse events were burns (30%), followed by dyspigmentation (14%), scarring (12%), other (11%), postoperative infection (8%), blisters (6%), pain (5%), hypertrophic scar (4%), post-treatment inflammation (4%), and textural changes (3%). Within the 10-year period analyzed, 56% of MDRs occurred between 2016 and 2019, with a disproportionately low percentage of MDRs occurring in 2022 (5%).

“Adverse events due to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are rare but potentially serious,” Dr. Hashemi concluded. “Care must be taken with counseling, patient selection, and treatment settings to optimize safety, informed consent, and patient satisfaction. Given the relatively low number of adverse events seen with fractional resurfacing lasers, factors driving their safety should be further explored.”

He added that he was surprised by the relatively low number of reported issues, referring to the total of 165 cases over 10 years. By comparison, he said, body contouring had 660 cases reported over a 7-year period in one recent study.

According to the MAUDE website, submitting MDRs to MAUDE is mandatory for manufacturers, importers, and device user facilities, and are voluntary for other groups, such as health care professionals, patients, and consumers.

Dr. Hashemi disclosed that he is a consultant for Castle Biosciences. He is also an entrepreneur in residence for Gore Range Capital.

PHOENIX – Burns, dyspigmentation, and scarring were the three most common complications from the use of ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers reported to the Food and Drug Administration between 2013 and 2022, an analysis of medical device reports (MDRs) over a decade showed.

Dr. Hashemi

The researchers limited their query to MDRs related to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. The query was performed in January 2023 using a comprehensive list of product names and manufacturers.

The initial search yielded 240 MDRs, which were individually reviewed for duplicate records or insufficient data, and the final analysis included 165 MDRs. The 10 most reported adverse events were burns (30%), followed by dyspigmentation (14%), scarring (12%), other (11%), postoperative infection (8%), blisters (6%), pain (5%), hypertrophic scar (4%), post-treatment inflammation (4%), and textural changes (3%). Within the 10-year period analyzed, 56% of MDRs occurred between 2016 and 2019, with a disproportionately low percentage of MDRs occurring in 2022 (5%).

“Adverse events due to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are rare but potentially serious,” Dr. Hashemi concluded. “Care must be taken with counseling, patient selection, and treatment settings to optimize safety, informed consent, and patient satisfaction. Given the relatively low number of adverse events seen with fractional resurfacing lasers, factors driving their safety should be further explored.”

He added that he was surprised by the relatively low number of reported issues, referring to the total of 165 cases over 10 years. By comparison, he said, body contouring had 660 cases reported over a 7-year period in one recent study.

According to the MAUDE website, submitting MDRs to MAUDE is mandatory for manufacturers, importers, and device user facilities, and are voluntary for other groups, such as health care professionals, patients, and consumers.

Dr. Hashemi disclosed that he is a consultant for Castle Biosciences. He is also an entrepreneur in residence for Gore Range Capital.

PHOENIX – Burns, dyspigmentation, and scarring were the three most common complications from the use of ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers reported to the Food and Drug Administration between 2013 and 2022, an analysis of medical device reports (MDRs) over a decade showed.

Dr. Hashemi

The researchers limited their query to MDRs related to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. The query was performed in January 2023 using a comprehensive list of product names and manufacturers.

The initial search yielded 240 MDRs, which were individually reviewed for duplicate records or insufficient data, and the final analysis included 165 MDRs. The 10 most reported adverse events were burns (30%), followed by dyspigmentation (14%), scarring (12%), other (11%), postoperative infection (8%), blisters (6%), pain (5%), hypertrophic scar (4%), post-treatment inflammation (4%), and textural changes (3%). Within the 10-year period analyzed, 56% of MDRs occurred between 2016 and 2019, with a disproportionately low percentage of MDRs occurring in 2022 (5%).

“Adverse events due to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are rare but potentially serious,” Dr. Hashemi concluded. “Care must be taken with counseling, patient selection, and treatment settings to optimize safety, informed consent, and patient satisfaction. Given the relatively low number of adverse events seen with fractional resurfacing lasers, factors driving their safety should be further explored.”

He added that he was surprised by the relatively low number of reported issues, referring to the total of 165 cases over 10 years. By comparison, he said, body contouring had 660 cases reported over a 7-year period in one recent study.

According to the MAUDE website, submitting MDRs to MAUDE is mandatory for manufacturers, importers, and device user facilities, and are voluntary for other groups, such as health care professionals, patients, and consumers.

Dr. Hashemi disclosed that he is a consultant for Castle Biosciences. He is also an entrepreneur in residence for Gore Range Capital.

Patients with darker skin phototypes are “poorly represented” in randomized controlled trials of laser and light treatments for cosmetic dermatologic conditions, according to a systematic review of the literature, the authors reported.

“While there broadly appears to be skin of color representation [in such studies], a more granular understanding of the data shows a large discrepancy in representation between ‘lighter’ and ‘darker’ skin of color patients,” Priya Manjaly and associates wrote in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

Among the 461 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) eligible for inclusion, most (81.7%) included participants with skin phototypes 4-6, which is considered skin of color. When only phototypes 5 and 6 were included, however, representation in studies involving laser and light devices was only 27.5%, said Ms. Manjaly, a research fellow in the department of dermatology at Boston University, and associates.

“This trend of excluding darker skin phototypes persisted when the results were stratified by condition, laser of study, study location, journal type, and funding source,” the investigators noted.

RCTs of laser/light devices for scarring, the most common dermatologic condition represented, included phototypes 5 and 6 in 24.4% of studies, compared with 84.4% for phototypes 4-6. The gap was smaller for melasma, but not for port wine stains. Among the devices examined, RCTs of diode lasers and intense pulsed light had the smallest gaps between inclusion of the two groups of phototypes, while pulsed-dye laser studies had the largest, they reported.

Stratification by journal showed the largest gap in studies published by Lasers in Medical Science and the smallest gap coming from Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. Funding was not specified for the majority of the eligible device RCTs, but those funded by industry had the smallest discrepancy between types 5-6 and types 4-6 and those supported by foundations/nonprofits the largest, Ms. Manjaly and associates said.

“With projections estimating that more than 50% of the U.S. population is set to identify as Hispanic or nonwhite by 2045 ... the lack of information has important consequences for clinical practice, as clinicians are unable to counsel patients on the efficacy and possible complications of various devices in patient with skin of color,” they wrote.

The investigators did not declare any conflicts of interest or funding sources.

Patients with darker skin phototypes are “poorly represented” in randomized controlled trials of laser and light treatments for cosmetic dermatologic conditions, according to a systematic review of the literature, the authors reported.

“While there broadly appears to be skin of color representation [in such studies], a more granular understanding of the data shows a large discrepancy in representation between ‘lighter’ and ‘darker’ skin of color patients,” Priya Manjaly and associates wrote in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

Among the 461 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) eligible for inclusion, most (81.7%) included participants with skin phototypes 4-6, which is considered skin of color. When only phototypes 5 and 6 were included, however, representation in studies involving laser and light devices was only 27.5%, said Ms. Manjaly, a research fellow in the department of dermatology at Boston University, and associates.

“This trend of excluding darker skin phototypes persisted when the results were stratified by condition, laser of study, study location, journal type, and funding source,” the investigators noted.

RCTs of laser/light devices for scarring, the most common dermatologic condition represented, included phototypes 5 and 6 in 24.4% of studies, compared with 84.4% for phototypes 4-6. The gap was smaller for melasma, but not for port wine stains. Among the devices examined, RCTs of diode lasers and intense pulsed light had the smallest gaps between inclusion of the two groups of phototypes, while pulsed-dye laser studies had the largest, they reported.

Stratification by journal showed the largest gap in studies published by Lasers in Medical Science and the smallest gap coming from Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. Funding was not specified for the majority of the eligible device RCTs, but those funded by industry had the smallest discrepancy between types 5-6 and types 4-6 and those supported by foundations/nonprofits the largest, Ms. Manjaly and associates said.

“With projections estimating that more than 50% of the U.S. population is set to identify as Hispanic or nonwhite by 2045 ... the lack of information has important consequences for clinical practice, as clinicians are unable to counsel patients on the efficacy and possible complications of various devices in patient with skin of color,” they wrote.

The investigators did not declare any conflicts of interest or funding sources.

Patients with darker skin phototypes are “poorly represented” in randomized controlled trials of laser and light treatments for cosmetic dermatologic conditions, according to a systematic review of the literature, the authors reported.

“While there broadly appears to be skin of color representation [in such studies], a more granular understanding of the data shows a large discrepancy in representation between ‘lighter’ and ‘darker’ skin of color patients,” Priya Manjaly and associates wrote in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

Among the 461 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) eligible for inclusion, most (81.7%) included participants with skin phototypes 4-6, which is considered skin of color. When only phototypes 5 and 6 were included, however, representation in studies involving laser and light devices was only 27.5%, said Ms. Manjaly, a research fellow in the department of dermatology at Boston University, and associates.

“This trend of excluding darker skin phototypes persisted when the results were stratified by condition, laser of study, study location, journal type, and funding source,” the investigators noted.

RCTs of laser/light devices for scarring, the most common dermatologic condition represented, included phototypes 5 and 6 in 24.4% of studies, compared with 84.4% for phototypes 4-6. The gap was smaller for melasma, but not for port wine stains. Among the devices examined, RCTs of diode lasers and intense pulsed light had the smallest gaps between inclusion of the two groups of phototypes, while pulsed-dye laser studies had the largest, they reported.

Stratification by journal showed the largest gap in studies published by Lasers in Medical Science and the smallest gap coming from Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. Funding was not specified for the majority of the eligible device RCTs, but those funded by industry had the smallest discrepancy between types 5-6 and types 4-6 and those supported by foundations/nonprofits the largest, Ms. Manjaly and associates said.

“With projections estimating that more than 50% of the U.S. population is set to identify as Hispanic or nonwhite by 2045 ... the lack of information has important consequences for clinical practice, as clinicians are unable to counsel patients on the efficacy and possible complications of various devices in patient with skin of color,” they wrote.

The investigators did not declare any conflicts of interest or funding sources.

The combination of a patient-specific mRNA-based cancer vaccine (mRNA-4157/V940, Moderna and Merck) and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival for patients with high-risk melanoma compared with pembrolizumab alone, according to the latest data from the KEYNOTE-942 trial.

This recurrence-free survival benefit corresponded to a 44% reduced risk of recurrence or death in patients who received the personalized vaccine plus pembrolizumab compared with the immunotherapy alone.

The randomized phase 2b trial is the first to show a positive result for a cancer vaccine in a randomized trial. The results, if confirmed in further studies, hold promise for treating other solid tumors with sensitivity to the programmed death-1 (PD-1) protein, investigators said.

“KEYNOTE-942 is the first randomized study to demonstrate improvement in recurrence-free survival in melanoma, or in any cancer in my view, with an individualized neoantigen vaccine approach,” trial investigator Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, of NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York, said during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“I have every confidence that this strategy will be expanded to other histologies that are PD-1 sensitive, such as non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, hepatocellular cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, et cetera,” Dr. Weber said.

Invited discussant Margaret Callahan, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, called the results “exciting,” especially in light of previous results in cancer vaccine trials. “Despite hundreds of formulations and dozens of studies, cancer vaccines have been disappointing so far, and have largely failed to have a meaningful impact in oncology,” she said.
 

A promising personalized vaccine

The mRNA vaccine is individually tailored and encodes up to 34 patient-specific tumor neoantigens. The vaccine also acts as an adjuvant to strengthen the immune response.

Dr. Weber said that the “mRNA 4157 is what one would call an individualized neoantigen therapy. It will target an individual patient’s unique tumor mutations, and the revelation over the last 5-10 years, is that, for better or worse, virtually all the neoantigens are unique to an individual patient. There are very, very few true universal neoantigens, or at least universal neoantigens that could have clinical utility.”

The vaccines are developed from tumor biopsy tissues that then undergo whole exome and RNA sequencing to identify single nucleotide variants that are present in the tumor but not in normal tissue.

The findings are then fed into a computer algorithm that identifies potential neoepitope peptides that would bind well to the patient’s human leukocyte antigen (HLA) type and could evoke strong T-cell responses.

“Once they’re chosen, you concatenate the sequences together into a single-strand mRNA vaccine, it’s packaged with nanoparticles to encapsulate it, and there you have your mRNA vaccine,” Dr. Weber explained.

In the KEYNOTE-942 trial, the investigators randomly assigned patients with completely resected high-risk cutaneous melanoma on a 2:1 basis to receive mRNA-4157 via intramuscular injection every 3 weeks for a total of nine doses, plus intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 18 cycles (107 patients) or pembrolizumab alone (50 patients). Median follow-up was 101 weeks in the combination group and 105 weeks in the pembrolizumab group.

Overall, the 18-month recurrence-free survival rates were 78.6% in the combination arm and 62.2% in the pembrolizumab arm. The recurrence-free survival rates corresponded to a 44% reduced risk of recurrence or death in patients who received the personalized vaccine plus pembrolizumab compared with those who received only pembrolizumab (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence, 0.561; P =.0266).

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the combination group and 18% of patients in the pembrolizumab group. The most common grade 3 event associated with the vaccine was fatigue. No grade 4 adverse events or deaths were associated with the vaccine, and the addition of the vaccine to pembrolizumab did not appear to increase risk for immune-mediated adverse events.

In a subanalysis, Dr. Weber and colleagues explored the relationship between tumor mutational burden and recurrence-free survival. Higher tumor mutational burden may mean more neoepitopes to target, which is helpful when developing personalized neoantigen vaccines, explained coinvestigator Ryan Sullivan, MD, associate director of the melanoma program at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, who presented the subanalysis results.

The investigators performed whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing of baseline tumor biopsy samples to determine the mutational burden of tumors and defined a high mutational burden as 10 or more mutations per megabase.

Overall, in the combination group, patients with a higher tumor mutational burden at baseline showed improved outcomes (HR, 0.652; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.284-1.494), as did patients with a lower tumor mutational burden (HR, 0.586; 95% CI, 0.243-1.415).

The authors found the same was true for patients with high vs. low tumor inflammation scores (high: HR, 0.576; 95% CI, 0.209-1.591 vs. low: HR, 0.528; 95% CI, 0.253-1.101) and higher PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 positive: HR, 0.485; 95% CI, 0.226-1.039 vs. PD-L1 negative: HR, 0.162; 95% CI, 0.038-0.685).

The hazard ratios crossed 1, which suggest that the combination was similarly effective in all patient subsets, said Dr. Sullivan.

Dr. Callahan also highlighted that the P value was based on a one-side log-rank test, “a relatively low bar to jump over” and that there were slight imbalances in both PD-1 expression status and tumor mutational burden – both of which favored the vaccine group and may be associated with better recurrence-free survival.

The 16% difference in recurrence-free survival seen with the combination vs. pembrolizumab alone, if confirmed in further studies, “is clinically meaningful for high-risk patients,” said Dr. Callahan. “The authors are to be congratulated for presenting the first randomized study of a neoantigen vaccine with a clinical efficacy primary endpoint, and this is a trial that incorporates many of the lessons we’ve learned along the years.”

Dr. Sullivan also commented on the promising results. “The field of cancer vaccines is a wasteland of failed clinical trials after some initial promising data, so to have something like this where it does appear that this vaccine strategy works is good not only for patients with melanoma but for those people who have dedicated their lives to trying to develop cancer vaccines,” he said in an interview.

KEYNOTE-942 was funded by Moderna with collaboration from Merck. Dr. Weber has financial relationships with Merck, Moderna, and other companies. Dr. Sullivan has served as a paid consultant for Merck and has received research funding from the company. Dr. Callahan disclosed a consulting/advisory role with Moderna, Merck, and others.
 

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

The combination of a patient-specific mRNA-based cancer vaccine (mRNA-4157/V940, Moderna and Merck) and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival for patients with high-risk melanoma compared with pembrolizumab alone, according to the latest data from the KEYNOTE-942 trial.

This recurrence-free survival benefit corresponded to a 44% reduced risk of recurrence or death in patients who received the personalized vaccine plus pembrolizumab compared with the immunotherapy alone.

The randomized phase 2b trial is the first to show a positive result for a cancer vaccine in a randomized trial. The results, if confirmed in further studies, hold promise for treating other solid tumors with sensitivity to the programmed death-1 (PD-1) protein, investigators said.

“KEYNOTE-942 is the first randomized study to demonstrate improvement in recurrence-free survival in melanoma, or in any cancer in my view, with an individualized neoantigen vaccine approach,” trial investigator Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, of NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York, said during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“I have every confidence that this strategy will be expanded to other histologies that are PD-1 sensitive, such as non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, hepatocellular cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, et cetera,” Dr. Weber said.

Invited discussant Margaret Callahan, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, called the results “exciting,” especially in light of previous results in cancer vaccine trials. “Despite hundreds of formulations and dozens of studies, cancer vaccines have been disappointing so far, and have largely failed to have a meaningful impact in oncology,” she said.
 

A promising personalized vaccine

The mRNA vaccine is individually tailored and encodes up to 34 patient-specific tumor neoantigens. The vaccine also acts as an adjuvant to strengthen the immune response.

Dr. Weber said that the “mRNA 4157 is what one would call an individualized neoantigen therapy. It will target an individual patient’s unique tumor mutations, and the revelation over the last 5-10 years, is that, for better or worse, virtually all the neoantigens are unique to an individual patient. There are very, very few true universal neoantigens, or at least universal neoantigens that could have clinical utility.”

The vaccines are developed from tumor biopsy tissues that then undergo whole exome and RNA sequencing to identify single nucleotide variants that are present in the tumor but not in normal tissue.

The findings are then fed into a computer algorithm that identifies potential neoepitope peptides that would bind well to the patient’s human leukocyte antigen (HLA) type and could evoke strong T-cell responses.

“Once they’re chosen, you concatenate the sequences together into a single-strand mRNA vaccine, it’s packaged with nanoparticles to encapsulate it, and there you have your mRNA vaccine,” Dr. Weber explained.

In the KEYNOTE-942 trial, the investigators randomly assigned patients with completely resected high-risk cutaneous melanoma on a 2:1 basis to receive mRNA-4157 via intramuscular injection every 3 weeks for a total of nine doses, plus intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 18 cycles (107 patients) or pembrolizumab alone (50 patients). Median follow-up was 101 weeks in the combination group and 105 weeks in the pembrolizumab group.

Overall, the 18-month recurrence-free survival rates were 78.6% in the combination arm and 62.2% in the pembrolizumab arm. The recurrence-free survival rates corresponded to a 44% reduced risk of recurrence or death in patients who received the personalized vaccine plus pembrolizumab compared with those who received only pembrolizumab (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence, 0.561; P =.0266).

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the combination group and 18% of patients in the pembrolizumab group. The most common grade 3 event associated with the vaccine was fatigue. No grade 4 adverse events or deaths were associated with the vaccine, and the addition of the vaccine to pembrolizumab did not appear to increase risk for immune-mediated adverse events.

In a subanalysis, Dr. Weber and colleagues explored the relationship between tumor mutational burden and recurrence-free survival. Higher tumor mutational burden may mean more neoepitopes to target, which is helpful when developing personalized neoantigen vaccines, explained coinvestigator Ryan Sullivan, MD, associate director of the melanoma program at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, who presented the subanalysis results.

The investigators performed whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing of baseline tumor biopsy samples to determine the mutational burden of tumors and defined a high mutational burden as 10 or more mutations per megabase.

Overall, in the combination group, patients with a higher tumor mutational burden at baseline showed improved outcomes (HR, 0.652; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.284-1.494), as did patients with a lower tumor mutational burden (HR, 0.586; 95% CI, 0.243-1.415).

The authors found the same was true for patients with high vs. low tumor inflammation scores (high: HR, 0.576; 95% CI, 0.209-1.591 vs. low: HR, 0.528; 95% CI, 0.253-1.101) and higher PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 positive: HR, 0.485; 95% CI, 0.226-1.039 vs. PD-L1 negative: HR, 0.162; 95% CI, 0.038-0.685).

The hazard ratios crossed 1, which suggest that the combination was similarly effective in all patient subsets, said Dr. Sullivan.

Dr. Callahan also highlighted that the P value was based on a one-side log-rank test, “a relatively low bar to jump over” and that there were slight imbalances in both PD-1 expression status and tumor mutational burden – both of which favored the vaccine group and may be associated with better recurrence-free survival.

The 16% difference in recurrence-free survival seen with the combination vs. pembrolizumab alone, if confirmed in further studies, “is clinically meaningful for high-risk patients,” said Dr. Callahan. “The authors are to be congratulated for presenting the first randomized study of a neoantigen vaccine with a clinical efficacy primary endpoint, and this is a trial that incorporates many of the lessons we’ve learned along the years.”

Dr. Sullivan also commented on the promising results. “The field of cancer vaccines is a wasteland of failed clinical trials after some initial promising data, so to have something like this where it does appear that this vaccine strategy works is good not only for patients with melanoma but for those people who have dedicated their lives to trying to develop cancer vaccines,” he said in an interview.

KEYNOTE-942 was funded by Moderna with collaboration from Merck. Dr. Weber has financial relationships with Merck, Moderna, and other companies. Dr. Sullivan has served as a paid consultant for Merck and has received research funding from the company. Dr. Callahan disclosed a consulting/advisory role with Moderna, Merck, and others.
 

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

The combination of a patient-specific mRNA-based cancer vaccine (mRNA-4157/V940, Moderna and Merck) and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival for patients with high-risk melanoma compared with pembrolizumab alone, according to the latest data from the KEYNOTE-942 trial.

This recurrence-free survival benefit corresponded to a 44% reduced risk of recurrence or death in patients who received the personalized vaccine plus pembrolizumab compared with the immunotherapy alone.

The randomized phase 2b trial is the first to show a positive result for a cancer vaccine in a randomized trial. The results, if confirmed in further studies, hold promise for treating other solid tumors with sensitivity to the programmed death-1 (PD-1) protein, investigators said.

“KEYNOTE-942 is the first randomized study to demonstrate improvement in recurrence-free survival in melanoma, or in any cancer in my view, with an individualized neoantigen vaccine approach,” trial investigator Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, of NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York, said during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“I have every confidence that this strategy will be expanded to other histologies that are PD-1 sensitive, such as non–small cell lung cancer, renal cell cancer, hepatocellular cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, et cetera,” Dr. Weber said.

Invited discussant Margaret Callahan, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, called the results “exciting,” especially in light of previous results in cancer vaccine trials. “Despite hundreds of formulations and dozens of studies, cancer vaccines have been disappointing so far, and have largely failed to have a meaningful impact in oncology,” she said.
 

A promising personalized vaccine

The mRNA vaccine is individually tailored and encodes up to 34 patient-specific tumor neoantigens. The vaccine also acts as an adjuvant to strengthen the immune response.

Dr. Weber said that the “mRNA 4157 is what one would call an individualized neoantigen therapy. It will target an individual patient’s unique tumor mutations, and the revelation over the last 5-10 years, is that, for better or worse, virtually all the neoantigens are unique to an individual patient. There are very, very few true universal neoantigens, or at least universal neoantigens that could have clinical utility.”

The vaccines are developed from tumor biopsy tissues that then undergo whole exome and RNA sequencing to identify single nucleotide variants that are present in the tumor but not in normal tissue.

The findings are then fed into a computer algorithm that identifies potential neoepitope peptides that would bind well to the patient’s human leukocyte antigen (HLA) type and could evoke strong T-cell responses.

“Once they’re chosen, you concatenate the sequences together into a single-strand mRNA vaccine, it’s packaged with nanoparticles to encapsulate it, and there you have your mRNA vaccine,” Dr. Weber explained.

In the KEYNOTE-942 trial, the investigators randomly assigned patients with completely resected high-risk cutaneous melanoma on a 2:1 basis to receive mRNA-4157 via intramuscular injection every 3 weeks for a total of nine doses, plus intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 18 cycles (107 patients) or pembrolizumab alone (50 patients). Median follow-up was 101 weeks in the combination group and 105 weeks in the pembrolizumab group.

Overall, the 18-month recurrence-free survival rates were 78.6% in the combination arm and 62.2% in the pembrolizumab arm. The recurrence-free survival rates corresponded to a 44% reduced risk of recurrence or death in patients who received the personalized vaccine plus pembrolizumab compared with those who received only pembrolizumab (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence, 0.561; P =.0266).

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the combination group and 18% of patients in the pembrolizumab group. The most common grade 3 event associated with the vaccine was fatigue. No grade 4 adverse events or deaths were associated with the vaccine, and the addition of the vaccine to pembrolizumab did not appear to increase risk for immune-mediated adverse events.

In a subanalysis, Dr. Weber and colleagues explored the relationship between tumor mutational burden and recurrence-free survival. Higher tumor mutational burden may mean more neoepitopes to target, which is helpful when developing personalized neoantigen vaccines, explained coinvestigator Ryan Sullivan, MD, associate director of the melanoma program at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, who presented the subanalysis results.

The investigators performed whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing of baseline tumor biopsy samples to determine the mutational burden of tumors and defined a high mutational burden as 10 or more mutations per megabase.

Overall, in the combination group, patients with a higher tumor mutational burden at baseline showed improved outcomes (HR, 0.652; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.284-1.494), as did patients with a lower tumor mutational burden (HR, 0.586; 95% CI, 0.243-1.415).

The authors found the same was true for patients with high vs. low tumor inflammation scores (high: HR, 0.576; 95% CI, 0.209-1.591 vs. low: HR, 0.528; 95% CI, 0.253-1.101) and higher PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 positive: HR, 0.485; 95% CI, 0.226-1.039 vs. PD-L1 negative: HR, 0.162; 95% CI, 0.038-0.685).

The hazard ratios crossed 1, which suggest that the combination was similarly effective in all patient subsets, said Dr. Sullivan.

Dr. Callahan also highlighted that the P value was based on a one-side log-rank test, “a relatively low bar to jump over” and that there were slight imbalances in both PD-1 expression status and tumor mutational burden – both of which favored the vaccine group and may be associated with better recurrence-free survival.

The 16% difference in recurrence-free survival seen with the combination vs. pembrolizumab alone, if confirmed in further studies, “is clinically meaningful for high-risk patients,” said Dr. Callahan. “The authors are to be congratulated for presenting the first randomized study of a neoantigen vaccine with a clinical efficacy primary endpoint, and this is a trial that incorporates many of the lessons we’ve learned along the years.”

Dr. Sullivan also commented on the promising results. “The field of cancer vaccines is a wasteland of failed clinical trials after some initial promising data, so to have something like this where it does appear that this vaccine strategy works is good not only for patients with melanoma but for those people who have dedicated their lives to trying to develop cancer vaccines,” he said in an interview.

KEYNOTE-942 was funded by Moderna with collaboration from Merck. Dr. Weber has financial relationships with Merck, Moderna, and other companies. Dr. Sullivan has served as a paid consultant for Merck and has received research funding from the company. Dr. Callahan disclosed a consulting/advisory role with Moderna, Merck, and others.
 

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.