MDedge Emergency Medicine

More Americans died from drug overdoses in 2020 than in any other year, the CDC said July 14.

Fatal overdoses rose by nearly 30% last year to a total of more than 93,000 deaths, according to the provisional data the National Center for Health Statistics reported.

The spikes are largely attributed to the rise in use of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids.

The Washington Post reported that more than 69,000 overdose deaths involved opioids, up from 50,963 in 2019.

Amid the crush of overdoses, the White House announced that President Joe Biden has nominated Rahul Gupta, MD, to lead the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Dr. Gupta is a former health commissioner of West Virginia, and is chief medical and health officer for the March of Dimes.

“Dr. Gupta led efforts in West Virginia to address the opioid crisis, gaining national prominence as a leader in tackling this issue,” March of Dimes President and CEO Stacey Stewart said in a statement. “At March of Dimes, he has advocated for policies and programs to prevent and treat substance use, with a focus on the safety and care of pregnant women and infants.”

Healthday contributed to this report. A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

More Americans died from drug overdoses in 2020 than in any other year, the CDC said July 14.

Fatal overdoses rose by nearly 30% last year to a total of more than 93,000 deaths, according to the provisional data the National Center for Health Statistics reported.

The spikes are largely attributed to the rise in use of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids.

The Washington Post reported that more than 69,000 overdose deaths involved opioids, up from 50,963 in 2019.

Amid the crush of overdoses, the White House announced that President Joe Biden has nominated Rahul Gupta, MD, to lead the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Dr. Gupta is a former health commissioner of West Virginia, and is chief medical and health officer for the March of Dimes.

“Dr. Gupta led efforts in West Virginia to address the opioid crisis, gaining national prominence as a leader in tackling this issue,” March of Dimes President and CEO Stacey Stewart said in a statement. “At March of Dimes, he has advocated for policies and programs to prevent and treat substance use, with a focus on the safety and care of pregnant women and infants.”

Healthday contributed to this report. A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

More Americans died from drug overdoses in 2020 than in any other year, the CDC said July 14.

Fatal overdoses rose by nearly 30% last year to a total of more than 93,000 deaths, according to the provisional data the National Center for Health Statistics reported.

The spikes are largely attributed to the rise in use of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids.

The Washington Post reported that more than 69,000 overdose deaths involved opioids, up from 50,963 in 2019.

Amid the crush of overdoses, the White House announced that President Joe Biden has nominated Rahul Gupta, MD, to lead the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Dr. Gupta is a former health commissioner of West Virginia, and is chief medical and health officer for the March of Dimes.

“Dr. Gupta led efforts in West Virginia to address the opioid crisis, gaining national prominence as a leader in tackling this issue,” March of Dimes President and CEO Stacey Stewart said in a statement. “At March of Dimes, he has advocated for policies and programs to prevent and treat substance use, with a focus on the safety and care of pregnant women and infants.”

Healthday contributed to this report. A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Medicare intends next year to allow physician assistants (PAs) to begin directly billing for their work and to expand coverage of telehealth services. It also intends to change the approach to payments for office visits and for coaching programs for diabetes prevention.

adventtr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently posted its proposed 2022 physician fee schedule. Running to more than 1,700 pages, the draft rule contains myriad other changes in how the giant federal health program pays for medical care, including revisions to its approach to evaluation and management (E/M) services, which represent many office visits. In addition, Medicare is seeking to increase participation in a program intended to prevent people from developing diabetes.

Physician groups posted quick complaints about a proposed 3.75% reduction to the conversion factor because of budget neutrality requirements. The cut reinstates a reduction Congress prevented in late 2020.

In a statement, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, called the draft rule a “mixed bag for physician practices.” Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA will seek congressional intervention to avert the cut for services in 2022.

In keeping with a provision Congress included in a massive spending bill enacted in December, Medicare will let PAs directly bill, as nurse practitioners already can. In a press release, CMS on July 13 described this as a move likely to expand access to care and reduce administrative burden. In 2020, the American Academy of PAs praised the inclusion in the spending bill of the provision allowing its members to directly bill Medicare.

In the draft rule, CMS also intends to remove certain geographic restrictions regarding use of telehealth services for diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of mental health disorders. CMS also is proposing to allow payment to eligible clinicians for certain mental health and behavioral health services to patients via audio-only telephone calls. These services would include counseling and therapy services provided through opioid treatment programs.

“These changes would be particularly helpful for those in areas with poor broadband infrastructure and among people with Medicare who are not capable of, or do not consent to the use of, devices that permit a two-way, audio/video interaction for their health care visits,” CMS said in a statement.
 

Slimmer Medicare enrollees, bigger payments for coaches?

CMS is seeking to draw more participants to the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP). This program includes organizations that provide structured, coach-led sessions in community and health care settings to help people lose weight and exercise more. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, CMS waived an enrollment fee for new suppliers of services in MDPP. CMS now is proposing to waive this fee for all organizations that submit an application to enroll in Medicare as an MDPP supplier on or after Jan. 1, 2022.

Another proposed change in MDPP services is a restructuring of payments so that organizations involved in coaching would receive larger payments when their participants reach milestones for attendance and for becoming slimmer.

“We propose to increase performance payments for MDPP beneficiary achievement of the 5% weight-loss goal, as well as continued attendance during each core maintenance interval,” CMS said in a statement.

Medicare remains engaged in a review of its payments for E/M services. In the draft rule, CMS is proposing a number of refinements to current policies for split, or shared, E/M visits, critical care services, and services furnished by teaching physicians involving residents. The intention of these changes is to “better reflect the current practice of medicine, the evolving role of nonphysician practitioners as members of the medical team, and to clarify conditions of payment that must be met to bill Medicare for these services,” CMS said.

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

Medicare intends next year to allow physician assistants (PAs) to begin directly billing for their work and to expand coverage of telehealth services. It also intends to change the approach to payments for office visits and for coaching programs for diabetes prevention.

adventtr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently posted its proposed 2022 physician fee schedule. Running to more than 1,700 pages, the draft rule contains myriad other changes in how the giant federal health program pays for medical care, including revisions to its approach to evaluation and management (E/M) services, which represent many office visits. In addition, Medicare is seeking to increase participation in a program intended to prevent people from developing diabetes.

Physician groups posted quick complaints about a proposed 3.75% reduction to the conversion factor because of budget neutrality requirements. The cut reinstates a reduction Congress prevented in late 2020.

In a statement, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, called the draft rule a “mixed bag for physician practices.” Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA will seek congressional intervention to avert the cut for services in 2022.

In keeping with a provision Congress included in a massive spending bill enacted in December, Medicare will let PAs directly bill, as nurse practitioners already can. In a press release, CMS on July 13 described this as a move likely to expand access to care and reduce administrative burden. In 2020, the American Academy of PAs praised the inclusion in the spending bill of the provision allowing its members to directly bill Medicare.

In the draft rule, CMS also intends to remove certain geographic restrictions regarding use of telehealth services for diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of mental health disorders. CMS also is proposing to allow payment to eligible clinicians for certain mental health and behavioral health services to patients via audio-only telephone calls. These services would include counseling and therapy services provided through opioid treatment programs.

“These changes would be particularly helpful for those in areas with poor broadband infrastructure and among people with Medicare who are not capable of, or do not consent to the use of, devices that permit a two-way, audio/video interaction for their health care visits,” CMS said in a statement.
 

Slimmer Medicare enrollees, bigger payments for coaches?

CMS is seeking to draw more participants to the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP). This program includes organizations that provide structured, coach-led sessions in community and health care settings to help people lose weight and exercise more. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, CMS waived an enrollment fee for new suppliers of services in MDPP. CMS now is proposing to waive this fee for all organizations that submit an application to enroll in Medicare as an MDPP supplier on or after Jan. 1, 2022.

Another proposed change in MDPP services is a restructuring of payments so that organizations involved in coaching would receive larger payments when their participants reach milestones for attendance and for becoming slimmer.

“We propose to increase performance payments for MDPP beneficiary achievement of the 5% weight-loss goal, as well as continued attendance during each core maintenance interval,” CMS said in a statement.

Medicare remains engaged in a review of its payments for E/M services. In the draft rule, CMS is proposing a number of refinements to current policies for split, or shared, E/M visits, critical care services, and services furnished by teaching physicians involving residents. The intention of these changes is to “better reflect the current practice of medicine, the evolving role of nonphysician practitioners as members of the medical team, and to clarify conditions of payment that must be met to bill Medicare for these services,” CMS said.

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

Medicare intends next year to allow physician assistants (PAs) to begin directly billing for their work and to expand coverage of telehealth services. It also intends to change the approach to payments for office visits and for coaching programs for diabetes prevention.

adventtr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently posted its proposed 2022 physician fee schedule. Running to more than 1,700 pages, the draft rule contains myriad other changes in how the giant federal health program pays for medical care, including revisions to its approach to evaluation and management (E/M) services, which represent many office visits. In addition, Medicare is seeking to increase participation in a program intended to prevent people from developing diabetes.

Physician groups posted quick complaints about a proposed 3.75% reduction to the conversion factor because of budget neutrality requirements. The cut reinstates a reduction Congress prevented in late 2020.

In a statement, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, called the draft rule a “mixed bag for physician practices.” Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA will seek congressional intervention to avert the cut for services in 2022.

In keeping with a provision Congress included in a massive spending bill enacted in December, Medicare will let PAs directly bill, as nurse practitioners already can. In a press release, CMS on July 13 described this as a move likely to expand access to care and reduce administrative burden. In 2020, the American Academy of PAs praised the inclusion in the spending bill of the provision allowing its members to directly bill Medicare.

In the draft rule, CMS also intends to remove certain geographic restrictions regarding use of telehealth services for diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of mental health disorders. CMS also is proposing to allow payment to eligible clinicians for certain mental health and behavioral health services to patients via audio-only telephone calls. These services would include counseling and therapy services provided through opioid treatment programs.

“These changes would be particularly helpful for those in areas with poor broadband infrastructure and among people with Medicare who are not capable of, or do not consent to the use of, devices that permit a two-way, audio/video interaction for their health care visits,” CMS said in a statement.
 

Slimmer Medicare enrollees, bigger payments for coaches?

CMS is seeking to draw more participants to the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP). This program includes organizations that provide structured, coach-led sessions in community and health care settings to help people lose weight and exercise more. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, CMS waived an enrollment fee for new suppliers of services in MDPP. CMS now is proposing to waive this fee for all organizations that submit an application to enroll in Medicare as an MDPP supplier on or after Jan. 1, 2022.

Another proposed change in MDPP services is a restructuring of payments so that organizations involved in coaching would receive larger payments when their participants reach milestones for attendance and for becoming slimmer.

“We propose to increase performance payments for MDPP beneficiary achievement of the 5% weight-loss goal, as well as continued attendance during each core maintenance interval,” CMS said in a statement.

Medicare remains engaged in a review of its payments for E/M services. In the draft rule, CMS is proposing a number of refinements to current policies for split, or shared, E/M visits, critical care services, and services furnished by teaching physicians involving residents. The intention of these changes is to “better reflect the current practice of medicine, the evolving role of nonphysician practitioners as members of the medical team, and to clarify conditions of payment that must be met to bill Medicare for these services,” CMS said.

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

St. Jude Medical, now part of Abbott Laboratories, will pay the American government $27 million to settle allegations that it knowingly sold defective implantable cardiac defibrillators to health care facilities, which were implanted into patients, causing injuries and two deaths, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

“Medical device manufacturers have an obligation to be truthful with the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. government will not pay for devices that are unsafe and risk injury or death,” Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, said in a July 8 statement.

“The government contends that St. Jude knowingly caused the submission of false claims and failed to inform the FDA with critical information about prior injuries and a death which, had the FDA been made aware, would have led to a recall,” Mr. Lenzner added.

Those claims were submitted to the Medicare, TRICARE, and Federal Employees Health Benefits programs, according to the settlement agreement.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to protecting Medicare and other federal health care programs from fraud, and in doing so, strengthen[ing] patient safety,” Mr. Lenzner said.
 

Premature battery depletion

The government alleges that St. Jude failed to disclose “serious adverse health events” related to premature battery depletion of certain models of its Fortify, Fortify Assura, Quadra, and Unify implantable defibrillators.

The government further alleges that, by 2013, St. Jude knew that lithium clusters could form on the batteries, causing them to short and run out of power. But it took until late 2014 for St. Jude to ask the FDA to approve a change to prevent lithium clusters from draining the battery.

And at this point, St. Jude told the FDA that “no serious injury, permanent harm, or deaths have been reported associated with this” issue, the government alleges.

However, according to the government’s allegations, St. Jude was aware at that time of two reported serious injuries and one death associated with the faulty batteries and continued to distribute devices that had been manufactured without the new design.

Not until August 2016 did St. Jude inform the FDA that the number of premature battery depletion events had increased to 729, including two deaths and 29 events associated with loss of pacing, the government alleges.

In October 2016, St. Jude issued a medical advisory regarding the battery problem, which the FDA classified as a Class I recall, the most serious type.

After the recall, St. Jude no longer sold the older devices, but thousands of them had been implanted into patients between November 2014 and October 2016.

In September 2017, as reported by this news organization, a nationwide class-action lawsuit was filed against St. Jude Medical and parent company Abbott Laboratories alleging that, despite knowing about a battery-depletion defect in some of its cardiac defibrillators as early as 2011, St. Jude failed to adequately report the risk and waited nearly 5 years before issuing a recall.

“To ensure the health and safety of patients, manufacturers of implantable cardiac devices must be transparent when communicating with the government about safety issues and incidents,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, from the DOJ’s Civil Division, said in the DOJ statement announcing the settlement.

“We will hold accountable those companies whose conduct violates the law and puts patients’ health at risk,” Mr. Boynton said.

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act by Debbie Burke, a patient who received one of the devices that was subject to recall.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability, the DOJ noted. St. Jude denies the allegations raised in the lawsuit.

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

St. Jude Medical, now part of Abbott Laboratories, will pay the American government $27 million to settle allegations that it knowingly sold defective implantable cardiac defibrillators to health care facilities, which were implanted into patients, causing injuries and two deaths, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

“Medical device manufacturers have an obligation to be truthful with the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. government will not pay for devices that are unsafe and risk injury or death,” Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, said in a July 8 statement.

“The government contends that St. Jude knowingly caused the submission of false claims and failed to inform the FDA with critical information about prior injuries and a death which, had the FDA been made aware, would have led to a recall,” Mr. Lenzner added.

Those claims were submitted to the Medicare, TRICARE, and Federal Employees Health Benefits programs, according to the settlement agreement.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to protecting Medicare and other federal health care programs from fraud, and in doing so, strengthen[ing] patient safety,” Mr. Lenzner said.
 

Premature battery depletion

The government alleges that St. Jude failed to disclose “serious adverse health events” related to premature battery depletion of certain models of its Fortify, Fortify Assura, Quadra, and Unify implantable defibrillators.

The government further alleges that, by 2013, St. Jude knew that lithium clusters could form on the batteries, causing them to short and run out of power. But it took until late 2014 for St. Jude to ask the FDA to approve a change to prevent lithium clusters from draining the battery.

And at this point, St. Jude told the FDA that “no serious injury, permanent harm, or deaths have been reported associated with this” issue, the government alleges.

However, according to the government’s allegations, St. Jude was aware at that time of two reported serious injuries and one death associated with the faulty batteries and continued to distribute devices that had been manufactured without the new design.

Not until August 2016 did St. Jude inform the FDA that the number of premature battery depletion events had increased to 729, including two deaths and 29 events associated with loss of pacing, the government alleges.

In October 2016, St. Jude issued a medical advisory regarding the battery problem, which the FDA classified as a Class I recall, the most serious type.

After the recall, St. Jude no longer sold the older devices, but thousands of them had been implanted into patients between November 2014 and October 2016.

In September 2017, as reported by this news organization, a nationwide class-action lawsuit was filed against St. Jude Medical and parent company Abbott Laboratories alleging that, despite knowing about a battery-depletion defect in some of its cardiac defibrillators as early as 2011, St. Jude failed to adequately report the risk and waited nearly 5 years before issuing a recall.

“To ensure the health and safety of patients, manufacturers of implantable cardiac devices must be transparent when communicating with the government about safety issues and incidents,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, from the DOJ’s Civil Division, said in the DOJ statement announcing the settlement.

“We will hold accountable those companies whose conduct violates the law and puts patients’ health at risk,” Mr. Boynton said.

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act by Debbie Burke, a patient who received one of the devices that was subject to recall.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability, the DOJ noted. St. Jude denies the allegations raised in the lawsuit.

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

St. Jude Medical, now part of Abbott Laboratories, will pay the American government $27 million to settle allegations that it knowingly sold defective implantable cardiac defibrillators to health care facilities, which were implanted into patients, causing injuries and two deaths, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

“Medical device manufacturers have an obligation to be truthful with the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. government will not pay for devices that are unsafe and risk injury or death,” Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, said in a July 8 statement.

“The government contends that St. Jude knowingly caused the submission of false claims and failed to inform the FDA with critical information about prior injuries and a death which, had the FDA been made aware, would have led to a recall,” Mr. Lenzner added.

Those claims were submitted to the Medicare, TRICARE, and Federal Employees Health Benefits programs, according to the settlement agreement.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to protecting Medicare and other federal health care programs from fraud, and in doing so, strengthen[ing] patient safety,” Mr. Lenzner said.
 

Premature battery depletion

The government alleges that St. Jude failed to disclose “serious adverse health events” related to premature battery depletion of certain models of its Fortify, Fortify Assura, Quadra, and Unify implantable defibrillators.

The government further alleges that, by 2013, St. Jude knew that lithium clusters could form on the batteries, causing them to short and run out of power. But it took until late 2014 for St. Jude to ask the FDA to approve a change to prevent lithium clusters from draining the battery.

And at this point, St. Jude told the FDA that “no serious injury, permanent harm, or deaths have been reported associated with this” issue, the government alleges.

However, according to the government’s allegations, St. Jude was aware at that time of two reported serious injuries and one death associated with the faulty batteries and continued to distribute devices that had been manufactured without the new design.

Not until August 2016 did St. Jude inform the FDA that the number of premature battery depletion events had increased to 729, including two deaths and 29 events associated with loss of pacing, the government alleges.

In October 2016, St. Jude issued a medical advisory regarding the battery problem, which the FDA classified as a Class I recall, the most serious type.

After the recall, St. Jude no longer sold the older devices, but thousands of them had been implanted into patients between November 2014 and October 2016.

In September 2017, as reported by this news organization, a nationwide class-action lawsuit was filed against St. Jude Medical and parent company Abbott Laboratories alleging that, despite knowing about a battery-depletion defect in some of its cardiac defibrillators as early as 2011, St. Jude failed to adequately report the risk and waited nearly 5 years before issuing a recall.

“To ensure the health and safety of patients, manufacturers of implantable cardiac devices must be transparent when communicating with the government about safety issues and incidents,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, from the DOJ’s Civil Division, said in the DOJ statement announcing the settlement.

“We will hold accountable those companies whose conduct violates the law and puts patients’ health at risk,” Mr. Boynton said.

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act by Debbie Burke, a patient who received one of the devices that was subject to recall.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability, the DOJ noted. St. Jude denies the allegations raised in the lawsuit.

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

Some people recovering from COVID-19 fare worse than current or previous cancer patients when referred to outpatient rehabilitation services, a new study from the CDC demonstrates.

People experiencing ongoing or “long-haul” symptoms after COVID-19 illness were more likely to report pain, challenges with physical activities, and “substantially worse health,” compared with people needing rehabilitation because of cancer, lead author Jessica Rogers-Brown, PhD, and colleagues report.

The study was published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

The CDC investigators compared the self-reported physical and mental health symptoms, physical endurance, and use of health services of 1,295 outpatients recovering from COVID-19 and a control group of another 2,395 outpatients rehabilitating from a previous or current cancer diagnosis who had not experienced COVID-19.

Researchers used electronic health record data from January 2020 to March 2021 in the Select Medical network of outpatient clinics. The study included patients from 36 states and the District of Columbia.

Compared with people referred for cancer rehabilitation, those with COVID-19 symptoms lasting beyond 4 weeks were 2.3 times more likely to report pain, 1.8 times more likely to report worse physical health, and 1.6 times more likely to report difficulty with physical activities, an adjusted odds ratio analysis reveals.

The COVID-19 rehabilitation group also performed significantly worse on a 6-minute walk test, suggesting less physical endurance than people recovering from cancer (P < .001). They also used more rehabilitation services overall than the control group.

The researchers suggest services tailored to the unique physical and mental health rehabilitation needs of the post–COVID-19 patient population could be warranted.

The study does not suggest all people recovering with COVID-19 will fare worse than people recovering from cancer, the authors caution. They note that “these results should not be interpreted to mean that post–COVID-19 patients overall had poorer physical and mental health than patients with cancer.”

“Instead, results indicate that post–COVID-19 patients specifically referred to a large physical rehabilitation network had poorer health measures than those referred for cancer, which indicates that some patients recovering from COVID-19 had substantial rehabilitation needs.”

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

Some people recovering from COVID-19 fare worse than current or previous cancer patients when referred to outpatient rehabilitation services, a new study from the CDC demonstrates.

People experiencing ongoing or “long-haul” symptoms after COVID-19 illness were more likely to report pain, challenges with physical activities, and “substantially worse health,” compared with people needing rehabilitation because of cancer, lead author Jessica Rogers-Brown, PhD, and colleagues report.

The study was published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

The CDC investigators compared the self-reported physical and mental health symptoms, physical endurance, and use of health services of 1,295 outpatients recovering from COVID-19 and a control group of another 2,395 outpatients rehabilitating from a previous or current cancer diagnosis who had not experienced COVID-19.

Researchers used electronic health record data from January 2020 to March 2021 in the Select Medical network of outpatient clinics. The study included patients from 36 states and the District of Columbia.

Compared with people referred for cancer rehabilitation, those with COVID-19 symptoms lasting beyond 4 weeks were 2.3 times more likely to report pain, 1.8 times more likely to report worse physical health, and 1.6 times more likely to report difficulty with physical activities, an adjusted odds ratio analysis reveals.

The COVID-19 rehabilitation group also performed significantly worse on a 6-minute walk test, suggesting less physical endurance than people recovering from cancer (P < .001). They also used more rehabilitation services overall than the control group.

The researchers suggest services tailored to the unique physical and mental health rehabilitation needs of the post–COVID-19 patient population could be warranted.

The study does not suggest all people recovering with COVID-19 will fare worse than people recovering from cancer, the authors caution. They note that “these results should not be interpreted to mean that post–COVID-19 patients overall had poorer physical and mental health than patients with cancer.”

“Instead, results indicate that post–COVID-19 patients specifically referred to a large physical rehabilitation network had poorer health measures than those referred for cancer, which indicates that some patients recovering from COVID-19 had substantial rehabilitation needs.”

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

Some people recovering from COVID-19 fare worse than current or previous cancer patients when referred to outpatient rehabilitation services, a new study from the CDC demonstrates.

People experiencing ongoing or “long-haul” symptoms after COVID-19 illness were more likely to report pain, challenges with physical activities, and “substantially worse health,” compared with people needing rehabilitation because of cancer, lead author Jessica Rogers-Brown, PhD, and colleagues report.

The study was published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

The CDC investigators compared the self-reported physical and mental health symptoms, physical endurance, and use of health services of 1,295 outpatients recovering from COVID-19 and a control group of another 2,395 outpatients rehabilitating from a previous or current cancer diagnosis who had not experienced COVID-19.

Researchers used electronic health record data from January 2020 to March 2021 in the Select Medical network of outpatient clinics. The study included patients from 36 states and the District of Columbia.

Compared with people referred for cancer rehabilitation, those with COVID-19 symptoms lasting beyond 4 weeks were 2.3 times more likely to report pain, 1.8 times more likely to report worse physical health, and 1.6 times more likely to report difficulty with physical activities, an adjusted odds ratio analysis reveals.

The COVID-19 rehabilitation group also performed significantly worse on a 6-minute walk test, suggesting less physical endurance than people recovering from cancer (P < .001). They also used more rehabilitation services overall than the control group.

The researchers suggest services tailored to the unique physical and mental health rehabilitation needs of the post–COVID-19 patient population could be warranted.

The study does not suggest all people recovering with COVID-19 will fare worse than people recovering from cancer, the authors caution. They note that “these results should not be interpreted to mean that post–COVID-19 patients overall had poorer physical and mental health than patients with cancer.”

“Instead, results indicate that post–COVID-19 patients specifically referred to a large physical rehabilitation network had poorer health measures than those referred for cancer, which indicates that some patients recovering from COVID-19 had substantial rehabilitation needs.”

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

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

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

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

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

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with limited English skills receive far less health care than do those proficient in English, according to a new study in Health Affairs.

Jessica Himmelstein, MD, a Harvard research fellow and primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., led a study of more than 120,000 adults published July 6, 2021. The study population included 17,776 Hispanic adults with limited English proficiency, 14,936 Hispanic adults proficient in English and 87,834 non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults.

Researchers compared several measures of care usage from information in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2018.

They found that, in adjusted analyses, total use of care per capita from 2014-2018, measured by health care expenditures, was $1,463 lower (98% confidence interval, $1,030-$1,897), or 35% lower for primary-Spanish speakers than for Hispanic adults who were English proficient and $2,802 lower (98% CI, $2,356-$3,247), or 42% lower versus non-Hispanic adults who were English proficient.

Spanish speakers also had 36% fewer outpatient visits and 48% fewer prescription medications than non-Hispanic adults, and 35% fewer outpatient visits and 37% fewer prescription medications than English-proficient Hispanic adults.

Even when accounting for differences in health, age, sex, income and insurance, adults with language barriers fared worse.
 

Gaps span all types of care

The services that those with limited English skills are missing are “the types of care people need to lead a healthy life,” from routine visits and medications to urgent or emergency care, Dr. Himmelstein said in an interview.

She said the gaps were greater in outpatient care and in medication use, compared with emergency department visits and inpatient care, but the inequities were present in all the categories she and her coinvestigators studied.

Underlying causes for having less care may include that people who struggle with English may not feel comfortable accessing the health system or may feel unwelcome or discriminated against.

“An undercurrent of biases, including racism, could also be contributing,” she said.

The data show that, despite several federal policy changes aimed at promoting language services in hospitals and clinics, several language-based disparities have not improved over 2 decades.

Some of the changes have included an executive order in 2000 requiring interpreters to be available in federally funded health facilities. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act enhanced the definition of meaningful access to language services and setting standards for qualified interpreters.
 

Gap widened over 2 decades

The adjusted gap in annual health care expenditures per capita between adults with limited English skills and non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults widened by $1,596 (98% CI, $837-$2,356) between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, after accounting for inflation.

Dr. Himmelstein said that though this study period predated COVID-19, its findings may help explain the disproportionate burden the pandemic placed on the Hispanic population.

“This is a community that traditionally wasn’t getting access to care and then suddenly something like COVID-19 comes and they were even more devastated,” she noted.

Telehealth, which proved an important way to access care during the pandemic, also added a degree of communication difficulty for those with fewer English skills, she said.

Many of the telehealth changes are here to stay, and it will be important to ask: “Are we ensuring equity in telehealth use for individuals who face language barriers?” Dr. Himmelstein said.

Olga Garcia-Bedoya, MD, an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of medicine and medical director of UIC’s Institute for Minority Health Research, said having access to interpreters with high accuracy is key to narrowing the gaps.

“The literature is very clear that access to professional medical interpreters is associated with decreased health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency,” she said.

More cultural training for clinicians is needed surrounding beliefs about illness and that some care may be declined not because of a person’s limited English proficiency, but because their beliefs may keep them from getting care, Dr. Garcia-Bedoya added. When it comes to getting a flu shot, for example, sometimes belief systems, rather than English proficiency, keep people from accessing care.
 

What can be done?

Addressing barriers caused by lack of English proficiency will likely take change in policies, including one related reimbursement for medical interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Currently, only 15 states’ Medicaid programs or Children’s Health Insurance Programs reimburse providers for language services, the paper notes, and neither Medicare nor private insurers routinely pay for those services.

Recruiting bilingual providers and staff at health care facilities and in medical and nursing schools will also be important to narrow the gaps, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Strengthening standards for interpreters also will help. “Currently such standards vary by state or by institution and are not necessarily enforced,” she explained.

It will also be important to make sure patients know that they are entitled by law to care, free of discriminatory practices and to have certain language services including qualified interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Dr. Garcia-Bedoya said changes need to come from health systems working in combination with clinicians, providing resources so that quality interpreters can be accessed and making sure that equipment supports clear communication in telehealth. Patients’ language preferences should also be noted as soon as they make the appointment.

The findings of the study may have large significance as one in seven people in the United States speak Spanish at home, and 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency, the authors noted.

Dr. Himmelstein receives funding support from an Institutional National Research Service Award. Dr. Garcia-Bedoya reports no relevant financial relationships.

Adults with limited English skills receive far less health care than do those proficient in English, according to a new study in Health Affairs.

Jessica Himmelstein, MD, a Harvard research fellow and primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., led a study of more than 120,000 adults published July 6, 2021. The study population included 17,776 Hispanic adults with limited English proficiency, 14,936 Hispanic adults proficient in English and 87,834 non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults.

Researchers compared several measures of care usage from information in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2018.

They found that, in adjusted analyses, total use of care per capita from 2014-2018, measured by health care expenditures, was $1,463 lower (98% confidence interval, $1,030-$1,897), or 35% lower for primary-Spanish speakers than for Hispanic adults who were English proficient and $2,802 lower (98% CI, $2,356-$3,247), or 42% lower versus non-Hispanic adults who were English proficient.

Spanish speakers also had 36% fewer outpatient visits and 48% fewer prescription medications than non-Hispanic adults, and 35% fewer outpatient visits and 37% fewer prescription medications than English-proficient Hispanic adults.

Even when accounting for differences in health, age, sex, income and insurance, adults with language barriers fared worse.
 

Gaps span all types of care

The services that those with limited English skills are missing are “the types of care people need to lead a healthy life,” from routine visits and medications to urgent or emergency care, Dr. Himmelstein said in an interview.

She said the gaps were greater in outpatient care and in medication use, compared with emergency department visits and inpatient care, but the inequities were present in all the categories she and her coinvestigators studied.

Underlying causes for having less care may include that people who struggle with English may not feel comfortable accessing the health system or may feel unwelcome or discriminated against.

“An undercurrent of biases, including racism, could also be contributing,” she said.

The data show that, despite several federal policy changes aimed at promoting language services in hospitals and clinics, several language-based disparities have not improved over 2 decades.

Some of the changes have included an executive order in 2000 requiring interpreters to be available in federally funded health facilities. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act enhanced the definition of meaningful access to language services and setting standards for qualified interpreters.
 

Gap widened over 2 decades

The adjusted gap in annual health care expenditures per capita between adults with limited English skills and non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults widened by $1,596 (98% CI, $837-$2,356) between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, after accounting for inflation.

Dr. Himmelstein said that though this study period predated COVID-19, its findings may help explain the disproportionate burden the pandemic placed on the Hispanic population.

“This is a community that traditionally wasn’t getting access to care and then suddenly something like COVID-19 comes and they were even more devastated,” she noted.

Telehealth, which proved an important way to access care during the pandemic, also added a degree of communication difficulty for those with fewer English skills, she said.

Many of the telehealth changes are here to stay, and it will be important to ask: “Are we ensuring equity in telehealth use for individuals who face language barriers?” Dr. Himmelstein said.

Olga Garcia-Bedoya, MD, an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of medicine and medical director of UIC’s Institute for Minority Health Research, said having access to interpreters with high accuracy is key to narrowing the gaps.

“The literature is very clear that access to professional medical interpreters is associated with decreased health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency,” she said.

More cultural training for clinicians is needed surrounding beliefs about illness and that some care may be declined not because of a person’s limited English proficiency, but because their beliefs may keep them from getting care, Dr. Garcia-Bedoya added. When it comes to getting a flu shot, for example, sometimes belief systems, rather than English proficiency, keep people from accessing care.
 

What can be done?

Addressing barriers caused by lack of English proficiency will likely take change in policies, including one related reimbursement for medical interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Currently, only 15 states’ Medicaid programs or Children’s Health Insurance Programs reimburse providers for language services, the paper notes, and neither Medicare nor private insurers routinely pay for those services.

Recruiting bilingual providers and staff at health care facilities and in medical and nursing schools will also be important to narrow the gaps, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Strengthening standards for interpreters also will help. “Currently such standards vary by state or by institution and are not necessarily enforced,” she explained.

It will also be important to make sure patients know that they are entitled by law to care, free of discriminatory practices and to have certain language services including qualified interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Dr. Garcia-Bedoya said changes need to come from health systems working in combination with clinicians, providing resources so that quality interpreters can be accessed and making sure that equipment supports clear communication in telehealth. Patients’ language preferences should also be noted as soon as they make the appointment.

The findings of the study may have large significance as one in seven people in the United States speak Spanish at home, and 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency, the authors noted.

Dr. Himmelstein receives funding support from an Institutional National Research Service Award. Dr. Garcia-Bedoya reports no relevant financial relationships.

Adults with limited English skills receive far less health care than do those proficient in English, according to a new study in Health Affairs.

Jessica Himmelstein, MD, a Harvard research fellow and primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., led a study of more than 120,000 adults published July 6, 2021. The study population included 17,776 Hispanic adults with limited English proficiency, 14,936 Hispanic adults proficient in English and 87,834 non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults.

Researchers compared several measures of care usage from information in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2018.

They found that, in adjusted analyses, total use of care per capita from 2014-2018, measured by health care expenditures, was $1,463 lower (98% confidence interval, $1,030-$1,897), or 35% lower for primary-Spanish speakers than for Hispanic adults who were English proficient and $2,802 lower (98% CI, $2,356-$3,247), or 42% lower versus non-Hispanic adults who were English proficient.

Spanish speakers also had 36% fewer outpatient visits and 48% fewer prescription medications than non-Hispanic adults, and 35% fewer outpatient visits and 37% fewer prescription medications than English-proficient Hispanic adults.

Even when accounting for differences in health, age, sex, income and insurance, adults with language barriers fared worse.
 

Gaps span all types of care

The services that those with limited English skills are missing are “the types of care people need to lead a healthy life,” from routine visits and medications to urgent or emergency care, Dr. Himmelstein said in an interview.

She said the gaps were greater in outpatient care and in medication use, compared with emergency department visits and inpatient care, but the inequities were present in all the categories she and her coinvestigators studied.

Underlying causes for having less care may include that people who struggle with English may not feel comfortable accessing the health system or may feel unwelcome or discriminated against.

“An undercurrent of biases, including racism, could also be contributing,” she said.

The data show that, despite several federal policy changes aimed at promoting language services in hospitals and clinics, several language-based disparities have not improved over 2 decades.

Some of the changes have included an executive order in 2000 requiring interpreters to be available in federally funded health facilities. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act enhanced the definition of meaningful access to language services and setting standards for qualified interpreters.
 

Gap widened over 2 decades

The adjusted gap in annual health care expenditures per capita between adults with limited English skills and non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults widened by $1,596 (98% CI, $837-$2,356) between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, after accounting for inflation.

Dr. Himmelstein said that though this study period predated COVID-19, its findings may help explain the disproportionate burden the pandemic placed on the Hispanic population.

“This is a community that traditionally wasn’t getting access to care and then suddenly something like COVID-19 comes and they were even more devastated,” she noted.

Telehealth, which proved an important way to access care during the pandemic, also added a degree of communication difficulty for those with fewer English skills, she said.

Many of the telehealth changes are here to stay, and it will be important to ask: “Are we ensuring equity in telehealth use for individuals who face language barriers?” Dr. Himmelstein said.

Olga Garcia-Bedoya, MD, an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of medicine and medical director of UIC’s Institute for Minority Health Research, said having access to interpreters with high accuracy is key to narrowing the gaps.

“The literature is very clear that access to professional medical interpreters is associated with decreased health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency,” she said.

More cultural training for clinicians is needed surrounding beliefs about illness and that some care may be declined not because of a person’s limited English proficiency, but because their beliefs may keep them from getting care, Dr. Garcia-Bedoya added. When it comes to getting a flu shot, for example, sometimes belief systems, rather than English proficiency, keep people from accessing care.
 

What can be done?

Addressing barriers caused by lack of English proficiency will likely take change in policies, including one related reimbursement for medical interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Currently, only 15 states’ Medicaid programs or Children’s Health Insurance Programs reimburse providers for language services, the paper notes, and neither Medicare nor private insurers routinely pay for those services.

Recruiting bilingual providers and staff at health care facilities and in medical and nursing schools will also be important to narrow the gaps, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Strengthening standards for interpreters also will help. “Currently such standards vary by state or by institution and are not necessarily enforced,” she explained.

It will also be important to make sure patients know that they are entitled by law to care, free of discriminatory practices and to have certain language services including qualified interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Dr. Garcia-Bedoya said changes need to come from health systems working in combination with clinicians, providing resources so that quality interpreters can be accessed and making sure that equipment supports clear communication in telehealth. Patients’ language preferences should also be noted as soon as they make the appointment.

The findings of the study may have large significance as one in seven people in the United States speak Spanish at home, and 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency, the authors noted.

Dr. Himmelstein receives funding support from an Institutional National Research Service Award. Dr. Garcia-Bedoya reports no relevant financial relationships.

Insert clove A into nostril B

Just when you start wondering what crazy and potentially dangerous thing people can do to themselves next, comes a crazy and potentially dangerous new trend. The good folks at TikTok have provided patients a new treatment for stuffed up sinuses.

Dangerous? Well, that’s what doctors say, anyway.

“We typically do not recommend putting anything into the nostril for the obvious fact that it could get dislodged or lodged up into the nasal cavity,” Anthony Del Signore, MD, of Mount Sinai Union Square, New York, told TODAY.

“Not only does it have the potential to rot or cause a nasal obstruction, it can induce an episode of sinusitis,” Omid Mehdizadeh, MD, of Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., explained to Shape.

But who doesn't want to breathe easier and keep blood-sucking vampires at bay?

Max Pixel

Seeing faces in random places?

Ever look up at the clouds, at a fast-moving train, or into your morning bowl of cereal and see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth looking back at you? You may shake it off and think you’re imagining something, but it's actually your brain doing what it’s built to do and researchers know why.

The phenomenon is called face pareidolia, and it’s technically an error function of the human brain. Evolution has molded our brains to rapidly identify faces, according to David Alais, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study.

“But the system plays ‘fast and loose’ by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth. Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response,” he said in a separate statement. But not only are we seeing faces, our brains go one step further and seemingly give those faces feelings.

University of Sydney

Corporate dream manipulation

Advertisements are quite literally everywhere. On billboards, in commercials, in videos, in movies; the list goes on and on. Still, at least you can shut your eyes and be mercifully free of corporate interference inside your own head, right? Right?

Early in 2021, Coors launched an ad campaign that seemed to be a b bit of a gimmick, if not a joke. Coors claimed that if people watched an ad before bed, and played an 8-hour soundscape while sleeping, their dreams would be filled with crisp mountains and cold, thirst-quenching beverages. While, the Coors campaign didn’t go viral, someone was paying attention. A group of 35 leading researchers published an open letter on the subject of corporate dream manipulation, in the journal Dream Engineering.

"Multiple marketing studies are openly testing new ways to alter and motivate purchasing behavior through dream and sleep hacking. The commercial, for-profit use of dream incubation is rapidly becoming a reality," wrote the investigators. "As sleep and dream researchers, we are deeply concerned about marketing plans aimed at generating profits at the cost of interfering with our natural nocturnal memory processing."

People have tried to manipulate their dreams for countless years, but only in recent years have scientists attempted to target or manipulate behavior through dreams. In a 2014 study, smokers exposed to tobacco smoke and rotten egg smell while sleeping reduced their cigarette consumption by 30%.

Free-Photos/Pixabay

Got breast milk?

As we know, breast milk has endless benefits for newbords and babies, but many things can stand in the way of a mother’s ability to breastfeed. Baby formula has served as a good enough substitute. But now, there might be something that’s even better.

A start-up company called BIOMILQ created a product that could be groundbreaking. Using “breakthrough mammary biotechnology,” BIOMILQ created cell-cultured breast milk.

Focus_on_Nature/Getty Images

Insert clove A into nostril B

Just when you start wondering what crazy and potentially dangerous thing people can do to themselves next, comes a crazy and potentially dangerous new trend. The good folks at TikTok have provided patients a new treatment for stuffed up sinuses.

Dangerous? Well, that’s what doctors say, anyway.

“We typically do not recommend putting anything into the nostril for the obvious fact that it could get dislodged or lodged up into the nasal cavity,” Anthony Del Signore, MD, of Mount Sinai Union Square, New York, told TODAY.

“Not only does it have the potential to rot or cause a nasal obstruction, it can induce an episode of sinusitis,” Omid Mehdizadeh, MD, of Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., explained to Shape.

But who doesn't want to breathe easier and keep blood-sucking vampires at bay?

Max Pixel

Seeing faces in random places?

Ever look up at the clouds, at a fast-moving train, or into your morning bowl of cereal and see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth looking back at you? You may shake it off and think you’re imagining something, but it's actually your brain doing what it’s built to do and researchers know why.

The phenomenon is called face pareidolia, and it’s technically an error function of the human brain. Evolution has molded our brains to rapidly identify faces, according to David Alais, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study.

“But the system plays ‘fast and loose’ by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth. Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response,” he said in a separate statement. But not only are we seeing faces, our brains go one step further and seemingly give those faces feelings.

University of Sydney

Corporate dream manipulation

Advertisements are quite literally everywhere. On billboards, in commercials, in videos, in movies; the list goes on and on. Still, at least you can shut your eyes and be mercifully free of corporate interference inside your own head, right? Right?

Early in 2021, Coors launched an ad campaign that seemed to be a b bit of a gimmick, if not a joke. Coors claimed that if people watched an ad before bed, and played an 8-hour soundscape while sleeping, their dreams would be filled with crisp mountains and cold, thirst-quenching beverages. While, the Coors campaign didn’t go viral, someone was paying attention. A group of 35 leading researchers published an open letter on the subject of corporate dream manipulation, in the journal Dream Engineering.

"Multiple marketing studies are openly testing new ways to alter and motivate purchasing behavior through dream and sleep hacking. The commercial, for-profit use of dream incubation is rapidly becoming a reality," wrote the investigators. "As sleep and dream researchers, we are deeply concerned about marketing plans aimed at generating profits at the cost of interfering with our natural nocturnal memory processing."

People have tried to manipulate their dreams for countless years, but only in recent years have scientists attempted to target or manipulate behavior through dreams. In a 2014 study, smokers exposed to tobacco smoke and rotten egg smell while sleeping reduced their cigarette consumption by 30%.

Free-Photos/Pixabay

Got breast milk?

As we know, breast milk has endless benefits for newbords and babies, but many things can stand in the way of a mother’s ability to breastfeed. Baby formula has served as a good enough substitute. But now, there might be something that’s even better.

A start-up company called BIOMILQ created a product that could be groundbreaking. Using “breakthrough mammary biotechnology,” BIOMILQ created cell-cultured breast milk.

Focus_on_Nature/Getty Images

Insert clove A into nostril B

Just when you start wondering what crazy and potentially dangerous thing people can do to themselves next, comes a crazy and potentially dangerous new trend. The good folks at TikTok have provided patients a new treatment for stuffed up sinuses.

Dangerous? Well, that’s what doctors say, anyway.

“We typically do not recommend putting anything into the nostril for the obvious fact that it could get dislodged or lodged up into the nasal cavity,” Anthony Del Signore, MD, of Mount Sinai Union Square, New York, told TODAY.

“Not only does it have the potential to rot or cause a nasal obstruction, it can induce an episode of sinusitis,” Omid Mehdizadeh, MD, of Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., explained to Shape.

But who doesn't want to breathe easier and keep blood-sucking vampires at bay?

Max Pixel

Seeing faces in random places?

Ever look up at the clouds, at a fast-moving train, or into your morning bowl of cereal and see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth looking back at you? You may shake it off and think you’re imagining something, but it's actually your brain doing what it’s built to do and researchers know why.

The phenomenon is called face pareidolia, and it’s technically an error function of the human brain. Evolution has molded our brains to rapidly identify faces, according to David Alais, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study.

“But the system plays ‘fast and loose’ by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth. Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response,” he said in a separate statement. But not only are we seeing faces, our brains go one step further and seemingly give those faces feelings.

University of Sydney

Corporate dream manipulation

Advertisements are quite literally everywhere. On billboards, in commercials, in videos, in movies; the list goes on and on. Still, at least you can shut your eyes and be mercifully free of corporate interference inside your own head, right? Right?

Early in 2021, Coors launched an ad campaign that seemed to be a b bit of a gimmick, if not a joke. Coors claimed that if people watched an ad before bed, and played an 8-hour soundscape while sleeping, their dreams would be filled with crisp mountains and cold, thirst-quenching beverages. While, the Coors campaign didn’t go viral, someone was paying attention. A group of 35 leading researchers published an open letter on the subject of corporate dream manipulation, in the journal Dream Engineering.

"Multiple marketing studies are openly testing new ways to alter and motivate purchasing behavior through dream and sleep hacking. The commercial, for-profit use of dream incubation is rapidly becoming a reality," wrote the investigators. "As sleep and dream researchers, we are deeply concerned about marketing plans aimed at generating profits at the cost of interfering with our natural nocturnal memory processing."

People have tried to manipulate their dreams for countless years, but only in recent years have scientists attempted to target or manipulate behavior through dreams. In a 2014 study, smokers exposed to tobacco smoke and rotten egg smell while sleeping reduced their cigarette consumption by 30%.

Free-Photos/Pixabay

Got breast milk?

As we know, breast milk has endless benefits for newbords and babies, but many things can stand in the way of a mother’s ability to breastfeed. Baby formula has served as a good enough substitute. But now, there might be something that’s even better.

A start-up company called BIOMILQ created a product that could be groundbreaking. Using “breakthrough mammary biotechnology,” BIOMILQ created cell-cultured breast milk.

Focus_on_Nature/Getty Images

A Texas grand jury has declined to indict a former health department doctor who was accused of theft because he took nine doses of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine that were about to expire and gave them to acquaintances and friends.

Hasan Gokal, MD, was fired from his job and charged with theft by a public servant. A judge dismissed the theft charge in January 2021, saying there was no probable cause, but prosecutors took the accusation to the Harris County Grand Jury, which on June 30 decided no prosecution was warranted, the Associated Press reported.

“I came as a practicing ER doctor into public health and as an ER doctor, I err on the side of life and that’s how I chose to make my decision,” Dr. Gokal told the Associated Press. “It was the right thing to do and it meant saving more lives.”

Dr. Gokal, 48, was supervising a COVID-19 vaccination clinic Dec. 29, 2020, in Humble, Tex., when the clinic closed for the day with an open vial containing nine doses of Moderna vaccine, the New York Times reported.

Since the vaccine would expire in 6 hours, Dr. Gokal scrambled to find people with medical conditions who needed vaccinating, he said. He gave the last dose to his wife, who has a lung condition, pulmonary sarcoidosis.

Dr. Gokal said he contacted his supervisor before acting and provided documentation the next day. He was fired for breaking protocol and then charged with theft.

“He abused his position to place his friends and family in line in front of people who had gone through the lawful process to be there,” Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said in a January statement. “What he did was illegal and he’ll be held accountable under the law.”

The AP reported that on June 30 the DA’s office issued a statement saying: “We respect the decision of the grand jury in this and every case. Evidence, not public opinion, is the guiding principle of our work.”

The AP said numerous doctors voiced support for Dr. Gokal and that the Texas Medical Board dismissed an investigation against him.

Dr. Gokal told the AP he’d still like to work in public health. Since being fired by the health department, he’s worked part time in the emergency departments at two Houston hospitals.

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

A Texas grand jury has declined to indict a former health department doctor who was accused of theft because he took nine doses of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine that were about to expire and gave them to acquaintances and friends.

Hasan Gokal, MD, was fired from his job and charged with theft by a public servant. A judge dismissed the theft charge in January 2021, saying there was no probable cause, but prosecutors took the accusation to the Harris County Grand Jury, which on June 30 decided no prosecution was warranted, the Associated Press reported.

“I came as a practicing ER doctor into public health and as an ER doctor, I err on the side of life and that’s how I chose to make my decision,” Dr. Gokal told the Associated Press. “It was the right thing to do and it meant saving more lives.”

Dr. Gokal, 48, was supervising a COVID-19 vaccination clinic Dec. 29, 2020, in Humble, Tex., when the clinic closed for the day with an open vial containing nine doses of Moderna vaccine, the New York Times reported.

Since the vaccine would expire in 6 hours, Dr. Gokal scrambled to find people with medical conditions who needed vaccinating, he said. He gave the last dose to his wife, who has a lung condition, pulmonary sarcoidosis.

Dr. Gokal said he contacted his supervisor before acting and provided documentation the next day. He was fired for breaking protocol and then charged with theft.

“He abused his position to place his friends and family in line in front of people who had gone through the lawful process to be there,” Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said in a January statement. “What he did was illegal and he’ll be held accountable under the law.”

The AP reported that on June 30 the DA’s office issued a statement saying: “We respect the decision of the grand jury in this and every case. Evidence, not public opinion, is the guiding principle of our work.”

The AP said numerous doctors voiced support for Dr. Gokal and that the Texas Medical Board dismissed an investigation against him.

Dr. Gokal told the AP he’d still like to work in public health. Since being fired by the health department, he’s worked part time in the emergency departments at two Houston hospitals.

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

A Texas grand jury has declined to indict a former health department doctor who was accused of theft because he took nine doses of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine that were about to expire and gave them to acquaintances and friends.

Hasan Gokal, MD, was fired from his job and charged with theft by a public servant. A judge dismissed the theft charge in January 2021, saying there was no probable cause, but prosecutors took the accusation to the Harris County Grand Jury, which on June 30 decided no prosecution was warranted, the Associated Press reported.

“I came as a practicing ER doctor into public health and as an ER doctor, I err on the side of life and that’s how I chose to make my decision,” Dr. Gokal told the Associated Press. “It was the right thing to do and it meant saving more lives.”

Dr. Gokal, 48, was supervising a COVID-19 vaccination clinic Dec. 29, 2020, in Humble, Tex., when the clinic closed for the day with an open vial containing nine doses of Moderna vaccine, the New York Times reported.

Since the vaccine would expire in 6 hours, Dr. Gokal scrambled to find people with medical conditions who needed vaccinating, he said. He gave the last dose to his wife, who has a lung condition, pulmonary sarcoidosis.

Dr. Gokal said he contacted his supervisor before acting and provided documentation the next day. He was fired for breaking protocol and then charged with theft.

“He abused his position to place his friends and family in line in front of people who had gone through the lawful process to be there,” Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said in a January statement. “What he did was illegal and he’ll be held accountable under the law.”

The AP reported that on June 30 the DA’s office issued a statement saying: “We respect the decision of the grand jury in this and every case. Evidence, not public opinion, is the guiding principle of our work.”

The AP said numerous doctors voiced support for Dr. Gokal and that the Texas Medical Board dismissed an investigation against him.

Dr. Gokal told the AP he’d still like to work in public health. Since being fired by the health department, he’s worked part time in the emergency departments at two Houston hospitals.

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

“What’s my number?” When I hear this from my financial planning clients, I know they mean: “What investment net worth do I need to be financially independent and make practicing medicine optional?” In my 20-year career, this “magic number” is by far the most common thing physicians want to know.

Wiroj Sidhisoradej/EyeEm/Getty Images

If you look online, articles may recommend having a portfolio valued at $2 million, $5 million, and not uncommonly $10 million or more to retire. Really? $10 million? You might be thinking that surely not everyone needs that amount. Luckily, that’s true.

There’s no magic number your portfolio should be – just your number.

It’s human nature to want a simple, clear target to shoot for. But unfortunately, there’s no generic answer when it comes to saving for retirement. Even after a comprehensive hour-long review of a client’s financial plan – including insurance, investments, estate planning, and other items – the most honest answer I can give is: “It depends.” Not satisfying, I know. But there are still too many holes to fill.

By far the most important factor in getting beyond “it depends” is having an accurate estimate of annual retirement expenses. I have clients who live comfortably on $50,000 a year in retirement and others who need $250,000 or more. Knowing how much you need – your personal number – depends on the individual’s unique dream for retirement and calculating what that dream will cost.

Form a guesstimate based on savings and anticipated expenses

The total portfolio value needed to sustain an annual expense of $50,000 a year in retirement spending versus the portfolio size needed for $250,000 or more, blows apart the fiction of a universal “magic number.” It’s just not that simple. While it’s hard to gauge exactly what you will need, the right information can lead to a logical guesstimate about what size portfolio will provide you with financial independence.

In the end, it’s up to you to determine your desired retirement lifestyle. Then, the only way to get there is to calculate how much it will cost and save up for it by following a well-informed financial plan. This plan will be based on strategy that shifts from the middle to the later stages of your medical career and into retirement.

Let’s see how it works.
 

Early to mid-career: Focus on building up retirement savings

We ultimately want to save enough to meet our retirement expenses. But figuring out how much to save when you’re in your 40s and 50s is difficult. A mid-career physician likely has significant family- and child-related expenses. When we become empty-nesters, those expenses will decline. In retirement they may disappear entirely, but new expenses may arise.

With large variations in expenses at different life stages, it’s hard to calculate exactly how much you will need to save. Early on, the most sensible thing is putting aside a “reasonable” percentage of gross income for retirement savings.

What is a ‘reasonable’ savings goal for retirement?

As is often the case with high-income earners, many of our clients don’t have a budget or a clear picture of their current expenses and spending habits. That’s alright as long as they are building up a reasonable nest egg for the future – which begs the question of what is reasonable.

For mid-career docs, a reasonable goal to aim for is putting aside 20% of gross income for retirement. What you spend the rest of your money on is less important than how much you’re saving.

This is quite different from how you’ll handle expenses during retirement, when you no longer have a steady stream of income; rather, you have a pot of money that needs to last you another 20, 30, or even 40 years. At that point, thinking about specific expenses becomes more important (more on this topic later). That said, if you’re a mid-career doctor who is not meeting this 20% savings goal, it’s time to make a plan that will free up cash for retirement savings and investments.
 

Later-career docs: Calculate your spending level in retirement

Financial success means having a portfolio that can support your retirement dreams – with the confidence that your money will last and you won’t need to watch every dollar you spend. As you near retirement, your focus will shift away from accumulating savings to calculating the annual expenses you will have to meet in retirement.

A good place to start is figuring out which expenses will be necessary and which will be more flexible. To do this, separate your anticipated spending into these two categories:

• Fixed expenses: You can confidently forecast your “must-have” fixed expenses – such as property taxes, property/casualty insurance, health care costs, utilities, and groceries – because they remain steady from month to month.
• Discretionary expenses: These “like-to-have” expenses vary from month to month. This makes them harder to predict but easier to control. They might include dining out, travel, and charitable contributions.

As a retiree, understanding your fixed and discretionary expenses can help you prepare for a bear market, when the stock market can decline by 20% or more. Your portfolio won’t consist entirely of stocks, so it shouldn’t drop to that degree. Still, it will decline significantly. You may need to cut back on spending for a year or 2 to allow your portfolio to recover, particularly if the portfolio declines early in retirement.

Are you ready for retirement?

During the long bull market preceding the great recession of 2007 and 2009, many physicians retired –only to return to their practices when their portfolio values plummeted. In the exuberance of the moment, many failed to heed the warnings of many economists and got caught flat-footed.

Right now it’s a bull market, but we’re seeing concerning signs, such as an out-of-control housing market and rumblings about inflation and rising consumer costs. Sound familiar? If you hope to retire soon, take the time to objectively look around the corner so you can plan appropriately – whether your goal is to retire completely, stay in practice part-time, or even take on a new opportunity.

In an “it-depends” world, don’t be lured by a fictitious magic number, no matter what comes up when you Google: “When can I retire?” Instead, save early, imagine your dream retirement, and calculate expenses later to see what’s possible.

Dr. Greenwald is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Dr. Greenwald completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He practiced internal medicine in the Twin Cities for 11 years before making the transition to financial planning for physicians, beginning in 1998.

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

“What’s my number?” When I hear this from my financial planning clients, I know they mean: “What investment net worth do I need to be financially independent and make practicing medicine optional?” In my 20-year career, this “magic number” is by far the most common thing physicians want to know.

Wiroj Sidhisoradej/EyeEm/Getty Images

If you look online, articles may recommend having a portfolio valued at $2 million, $5 million, and not uncommonly $10 million or more to retire. Really? $10 million? You might be thinking that surely not everyone needs that amount. Luckily, that’s true.

There’s no magic number your portfolio should be – just your number.

It’s human nature to want a simple, clear target to shoot for. But unfortunately, there’s no generic answer when it comes to saving for retirement. Even after a comprehensive hour-long review of a client’s financial plan – including insurance, investments, estate planning, and other items – the most honest answer I can give is: “It depends.” Not satisfying, I know. But there are still too many holes to fill.

By far the most important factor in getting beyond “it depends” is having an accurate estimate of annual retirement expenses. I have clients who live comfortably on $50,000 a year in retirement and others who need $250,000 or more. Knowing how much you need – your personal number – depends on the individual’s unique dream for retirement and calculating what that dream will cost.

Form a guesstimate based on savings and anticipated expenses

The total portfolio value needed to sustain an annual expense of $50,000 a year in retirement spending versus the portfolio size needed for $250,000 or more, blows apart the fiction of a universal “magic number.” It’s just not that simple. While it’s hard to gauge exactly what you will need, the right information can lead to a logical guesstimate about what size portfolio will provide you with financial independence.

In the end, it’s up to you to determine your desired retirement lifestyle. Then, the only way to get there is to calculate how much it will cost and save up for it by following a well-informed financial plan. This plan will be based on strategy that shifts from the middle to the later stages of your medical career and into retirement.

Let’s see how it works.
 

Early to mid-career: Focus on building up retirement savings

We ultimately want to save enough to meet our retirement expenses. But figuring out how much to save when you’re in your 40s and 50s is difficult. A mid-career physician likely has significant family- and child-related expenses. When we become empty-nesters, those expenses will decline. In retirement they may disappear entirely, but new expenses may arise.

With large variations in expenses at different life stages, it’s hard to calculate exactly how much you will need to save. Early on, the most sensible thing is putting aside a “reasonable” percentage of gross income for retirement savings.

What is a ‘reasonable’ savings goal for retirement?

As is often the case with high-income earners, many of our clients don’t have a budget or a clear picture of their current expenses and spending habits. That’s alright as long as they are building up a reasonable nest egg for the future – which begs the question of what is reasonable.

For mid-career docs, a reasonable goal to aim for is putting aside 20% of gross income for retirement. What you spend the rest of your money on is less important than how much you’re saving.

This is quite different from how you’ll handle expenses during retirement, when you no longer have a steady stream of income; rather, you have a pot of money that needs to last you another 20, 30, or even 40 years. At that point, thinking about specific expenses becomes more important (more on this topic later). That said, if you’re a mid-career doctor who is not meeting this 20% savings goal, it’s time to make a plan that will free up cash for retirement savings and investments.
 

Later-career docs: Calculate your spending level in retirement

Financial success means having a portfolio that can support your retirement dreams – with the confidence that your money will last and you won’t need to watch every dollar you spend. As you near retirement, your focus will shift away from accumulating savings to calculating the annual expenses you will have to meet in retirement.

A good place to start is figuring out which expenses will be necessary and which will be more flexible. To do this, separate your anticipated spending into these two categories:

• Fixed expenses: You can confidently forecast your “must-have” fixed expenses – such as property taxes, property/casualty insurance, health care costs, utilities, and groceries – because they remain steady from month to month.
• Discretionary expenses: These “like-to-have” expenses vary from month to month. This makes them harder to predict but easier to control. They might include dining out, travel, and charitable contributions.

As a retiree, understanding your fixed and discretionary expenses can help you prepare for a bear market, when the stock market can decline by 20% or more. Your portfolio won’t consist entirely of stocks, so it shouldn’t drop to that degree. Still, it will decline significantly. You may need to cut back on spending for a year or 2 to allow your portfolio to recover, particularly if the portfolio declines early in retirement.

Are you ready for retirement?

During the long bull market preceding the great recession of 2007 and 2009, many physicians retired –only to return to their practices when their portfolio values plummeted. In the exuberance of the moment, many failed to heed the warnings of many economists and got caught flat-footed.

Right now it’s a bull market, but we’re seeing concerning signs, such as an out-of-control housing market and rumblings about inflation and rising consumer costs. Sound familiar? If you hope to retire soon, take the time to objectively look around the corner so you can plan appropriately – whether your goal is to retire completely, stay in practice part-time, or even take on a new opportunity.

In an “it-depends” world, don’t be lured by a fictitious magic number, no matter what comes up when you Google: “When can I retire?” Instead, save early, imagine your dream retirement, and calculate expenses later to see what’s possible.

Dr. Greenwald is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Dr. Greenwald completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He practiced internal medicine in the Twin Cities for 11 years before making the transition to financial planning for physicians, beginning in 1998.

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

“What’s my number?” When I hear this from my financial planning clients, I know they mean: “What investment net worth do I need to be financially independent and make practicing medicine optional?” In my 20-year career, this “magic number” is by far the most common thing physicians want to know.

Wiroj Sidhisoradej/EyeEm/Getty Images

If you look online, articles may recommend having a portfolio valued at $2 million, $5 million, and not uncommonly $10 million or more to retire. Really? $10 million? You might be thinking that surely not everyone needs that amount. Luckily, that’s true.

There’s no magic number your portfolio should be – just your number.

It’s human nature to want a simple, clear target to shoot for. But unfortunately, there’s no generic answer when it comes to saving for retirement. Even after a comprehensive hour-long review of a client’s financial plan – including insurance, investments, estate planning, and other items – the most honest answer I can give is: “It depends.” Not satisfying, I know. But there are still too many holes to fill.

By far the most important factor in getting beyond “it depends” is having an accurate estimate of annual retirement expenses. I have clients who live comfortably on $50,000 a year in retirement and others who need $250,000 or more. Knowing how much you need – your personal number – depends on the individual’s unique dream for retirement and calculating what that dream will cost.

Form a guesstimate based on savings and anticipated expenses

The total portfolio value needed to sustain an annual expense of $50,000 a year in retirement spending versus the portfolio size needed for $250,000 or more, blows apart the fiction of a universal “magic number.” It’s just not that simple. While it’s hard to gauge exactly what you will need, the right information can lead to a logical guesstimate about what size portfolio will provide you with financial independence.

In the end, it’s up to you to determine your desired retirement lifestyle. Then, the only way to get there is to calculate how much it will cost and save up for it by following a well-informed financial plan. This plan will be based on strategy that shifts from the middle to the later stages of your medical career and into retirement.

Let’s see how it works.
 

Early to mid-career: Focus on building up retirement savings

We ultimately want to save enough to meet our retirement expenses. But figuring out how much to save when you’re in your 40s and 50s is difficult. A mid-career physician likely has significant family- and child-related expenses. When we become empty-nesters, those expenses will decline. In retirement they may disappear entirely, but new expenses may arise.

With large variations in expenses at different life stages, it’s hard to calculate exactly how much you will need to save. Early on, the most sensible thing is putting aside a “reasonable” percentage of gross income for retirement savings.

What is a ‘reasonable’ savings goal for retirement?

As is often the case with high-income earners, many of our clients don’t have a budget or a clear picture of their current expenses and spending habits. That’s alright as long as they are building up a reasonable nest egg for the future – which begs the question of what is reasonable.

For mid-career docs, a reasonable goal to aim for is putting aside 20% of gross income for retirement. What you spend the rest of your money on is less important than how much you’re saving.

This is quite different from how you’ll handle expenses during retirement, when you no longer have a steady stream of income; rather, you have a pot of money that needs to last you another 20, 30, or even 40 years. At that point, thinking about specific expenses becomes more important (more on this topic later). That said, if you’re a mid-career doctor who is not meeting this 20% savings goal, it’s time to make a plan that will free up cash for retirement savings and investments.
 

Later-career docs: Calculate your spending level in retirement

Financial success means having a portfolio that can support your retirement dreams – with the confidence that your money will last and you won’t need to watch every dollar you spend. As you near retirement, your focus will shift away from accumulating savings to calculating the annual expenses you will have to meet in retirement.

A good place to start is figuring out which expenses will be necessary and which will be more flexible. To do this, separate your anticipated spending into these two categories:

• Fixed expenses: You can confidently forecast your “must-have” fixed expenses – such as property taxes, property/casualty insurance, health care costs, utilities, and groceries – because they remain steady from month to month.
• Discretionary expenses: These “like-to-have” expenses vary from month to month. This makes them harder to predict but easier to control. They might include dining out, travel, and charitable contributions.

As a retiree, understanding your fixed and discretionary expenses can help you prepare for a bear market, when the stock market can decline by 20% or more. Your portfolio won’t consist entirely of stocks, so it shouldn’t drop to that degree. Still, it will decline significantly. You may need to cut back on spending for a year or 2 to allow your portfolio to recover, particularly if the portfolio declines early in retirement.

Are you ready for retirement?

During the long bull market preceding the great recession of 2007 and 2009, many physicians retired –only to return to their practices when their portfolio values plummeted. In the exuberance of the moment, many failed to heed the warnings of many economists and got caught flat-footed.

Right now it’s a bull market, but we’re seeing concerning signs, such as an out-of-control housing market and rumblings about inflation and rising consumer costs. Sound familiar? If you hope to retire soon, take the time to objectively look around the corner so you can plan appropriately – whether your goal is to retire completely, stay in practice part-time, or even take on a new opportunity.

In an “it-depends” world, don’t be lured by a fictitious magic number, no matter what comes up when you Google: “When can I retire?” Instead, save early, imagine your dream retirement, and calculate expenses later to see what’s possible.

Dr. Greenwald is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Dr. Greenwald completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He practiced internal medicine in the Twin Cities for 11 years before making the transition to financial planning for physicians, beginning in 1998.

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