User login
-
Fear drives activity changes in hemophilia patients
Fear of negative events can drive changes in activity levels among patients with hemophilia A, results of the HemACTIVE study suggest.
Patients were more likely to adjust their level of physical activity due to fear of bleeding and joint damage rather than previously experienced bleeding or joint damage.
However, past experience was more likely than fear to make patients stop physical activities altogether.
Mark Skinner, of the Institute for Policy Advancement in Washington, D.C., and colleagues presented these findings in a poster from the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.
Mr. Skinner, who is a hemophilia patient himself, said the goal of the HemACTIVE study is to better understand how hemophilia affects patients’ lives.
“We wanted to understand the limitations, challenges, and compromises of individuals living with hemophilia,” Mr. Skinner said. “What has motivated them or prevented them from living more full, active lives doing the kind of work, leisure, and social activities that those without hemophilia do? Is it treatment choice, is it satisfaction with treatment, is it fear?
“We wanted to do a comprehensive study that really looked at the intersection of treatment adherence and satisfaction, the emotional components that relate to those decisions, and the challenges and compromises so that we could better identify what we need to consider as patients think about either changing their therapy or changing their treatment regimen on existing therapy.”
Previous results from the HemACTIVE study showed that, although activity levels differed among hemophilia patients, all patients surveyed wanted greater activity levels, better protection from bleeding, better pain relief, and less-frequent infusions (EAHAD 2019, Abstract P084). In addition, patients who used factor VIII products with an extended half-life were more active and more likely to adhere to their prescribed treatment (ISTH 2019, Abstract PB0210).
The results reported at EAHAD 2020 focus on patients’ reasons for modifying physical activity. Patients and caregivers completed a screening phone interview, followed by a 25-minute, web-based questionnaire on patient activity.
There were 275 respondents – 194 patients with hemophilia A and 81 caregivers – from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and the United States. Patients had severe (61%) or moderate (39%) hemophilia A, and most (67%) were receiving prophylaxis.
Most patients (70%) were “active” or “extremely/very active,” 77% of patients adjusted their activities because of their hemophilia, and nearly half of patients stopped activities because of their disease.
Fear drives adjustments in activity
Patients were sometimes more likely to adjust their activities based on fear of experiencing an event, as opposed to previously experiencing that event.
Specifically, 44% of patients adjusted their activities due to fear of joint damage, compared with 36% of patients who made adjustments because of past significant joint damage.
Similarly, 41% of patients adjusted activities due to fear of breakthrough bleeds, compared with 36% of patients who made adjustments because of past experience with bleeds and 25% who made adjustments because of significant past bleeds.
On the other hand, a similar percentage of patients adjusted activities because of past experience with pain (43%) and fear of pain (41%). And a similar percentage of patients adjusted activities because of existing joint damage restrictions (35%) and fear of joint deterioration (32%).
Past experience prompts discontinuation of activity
Overall, 47% of patients said anxiety was the most common emotional reason for stopping physical activities. However, patients were consistently more likely to stop activities because of past experience rather than fear or anxiety.
Specifically, 50% of patients stopped activities because of significant past joint damage, 46% stopped because of developing joint problems, and 38% stopped due to fear of joint damage.
More patients stopped activities because of significant past bleeds (41%) rather than fear of breakthrough bleeds (26%). More patients stopped activities because they developed chronic pain (38%) rather than fear of pain (less than 15%). And more patients stopped activities because of existing joint damage restrictions (62%) rather than fear of joint damage (34%).
Applying results to practice: Changing the conversation
Ideally, these findings would be used to promote individualized treatment of hemophilia driven by patients’ goals, Mr. Skinner said. By better understanding patients’ feelings and motivations, clinicians may devise more personalized treatment regimens that align with patients’ goals and improve their quality of life.
Rather than adjusting treatment based only on “hard metrics” such as bleeding events, “we need to take a more holistic approach to looking at outcomes that are more important to patients,” Mr. Skinner said. This type of approach is particularly important to Mr. Skinner as someone who has severe hemophilia A.
“Because hemophilia is a life-long disease, and you’re born with it, you make conscious or unconscious adaptations throughout your life,” he explained. “Your expectations or aspirations adjust to what you’ve been told you can or cannot do because of your hemophilia. The choices I made for my career, where I live, the type of vacations I go on, the type of sports I participate in have all been limited over the course of time, which has meant that I’ve made compromises. There are a lot of individuals with hemophilia who are making decisions that are not what their life goals are.
“What this research helps me understand is that we can change the conversation and build it around an individual patient and understand what their aspirations are. If a clinician understands what I’m wanting to achieve in life … we can build a treatment regime around helping me achieve those goals. That is known to improve adherence.
“The goal, really, is to have hemophilia as a secondary consideration. Instead of saying: ‘You have hemophilia, so these are the options available to you,’ you can say, ‘what is it that you would like to achieve, and then we’ll figure out how your treatment for hemophilia can be adjusted to help you achieve those goals.’ It may sound like a nuance, but it really is reversing the conversation. The goal setting first versus your disease comes first.”
The HemACTIVE study was supported by Bayer. Mr. Skinner disclosed relationships with Bayer and other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Skinner M et al. EAHAD 2020, Abstract P304.
Fear of negative events can drive changes in activity levels among patients with hemophilia A, results of the HemACTIVE study suggest.
Patients were more likely to adjust their level of physical activity due to fear of bleeding and joint damage rather than previously experienced bleeding or joint damage.
However, past experience was more likely than fear to make patients stop physical activities altogether.
Mark Skinner, of the Institute for Policy Advancement in Washington, D.C., and colleagues presented these findings in a poster from the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.
Mr. Skinner, who is a hemophilia patient himself, said the goal of the HemACTIVE study is to better understand how hemophilia affects patients’ lives.
“We wanted to understand the limitations, challenges, and compromises of individuals living with hemophilia,” Mr. Skinner said. “What has motivated them or prevented them from living more full, active lives doing the kind of work, leisure, and social activities that those without hemophilia do? Is it treatment choice, is it satisfaction with treatment, is it fear?
“We wanted to do a comprehensive study that really looked at the intersection of treatment adherence and satisfaction, the emotional components that relate to those decisions, and the challenges and compromises so that we could better identify what we need to consider as patients think about either changing their therapy or changing their treatment regimen on existing therapy.”
Previous results from the HemACTIVE study showed that, although activity levels differed among hemophilia patients, all patients surveyed wanted greater activity levels, better protection from bleeding, better pain relief, and less-frequent infusions (EAHAD 2019, Abstract P084). In addition, patients who used factor VIII products with an extended half-life were more active and more likely to adhere to their prescribed treatment (ISTH 2019, Abstract PB0210).
The results reported at EAHAD 2020 focus on patients’ reasons for modifying physical activity. Patients and caregivers completed a screening phone interview, followed by a 25-minute, web-based questionnaire on patient activity.
There were 275 respondents – 194 patients with hemophilia A and 81 caregivers – from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and the United States. Patients had severe (61%) or moderate (39%) hemophilia A, and most (67%) were receiving prophylaxis.
Most patients (70%) were “active” or “extremely/very active,” 77% of patients adjusted their activities because of their hemophilia, and nearly half of patients stopped activities because of their disease.
Fear drives adjustments in activity
Patients were sometimes more likely to adjust their activities based on fear of experiencing an event, as opposed to previously experiencing that event.
Specifically, 44% of patients adjusted their activities due to fear of joint damage, compared with 36% of patients who made adjustments because of past significant joint damage.
Similarly, 41% of patients adjusted activities due to fear of breakthrough bleeds, compared with 36% of patients who made adjustments because of past experience with bleeds and 25% who made adjustments because of significant past bleeds.
On the other hand, a similar percentage of patients adjusted activities because of past experience with pain (43%) and fear of pain (41%). And a similar percentage of patients adjusted activities because of existing joint damage restrictions (35%) and fear of joint deterioration (32%).
Past experience prompts discontinuation of activity
Overall, 47% of patients said anxiety was the most common emotional reason for stopping physical activities. However, patients were consistently more likely to stop activities because of past experience rather than fear or anxiety.
Specifically, 50% of patients stopped activities because of significant past joint damage, 46% stopped because of developing joint problems, and 38% stopped due to fear of joint damage.
More patients stopped activities because of significant past bleeds (41%) rather than fear of breakthrough bleeds (26%). More patients stopped activities because they developed chronic pain (38%) rather than fear of pain (less than 15%). And more patients stopped activities because of existing joint damage restrictions (62%) rather than fear of joint damage (34%).
Applying results to practice: Changing the conversation
Ideally, these findings would be used to promote individualized treatment of hemophilia driven by patients’ goals, Mr. Skinner said. By better understanding patients’ feelings and motivations, clinicians may devise more personalized treatment regimens that align with patients’ goals and improve their quality of life.
Rather than adjusting treatment based only on “hard metrics” such as bleeding events, “we need to take a more holistic approach to looking at outcomes that are more important to patients,” Mr. Skinner said. This type of approach is particularly important to Mr. Skinner as someone who has severe hemophilia A.
“Because hemophilia is a life-long disease, and you’re born with it, you make conscious or unconscious adaptations throughout your life,” he explained. “Your expectations or aspirations adjust to what you’ve been told you can or cannot do because of your hemophilia. The choices I made for my career, where I live, the type of vacations I go on, the type of sports I participate in have all been limited over the course of time, which has meant that I’ve made compromises. There are a lot of individuals with hemophilia who are making decisions that are not what their life goals are.
“What this research helps me understand is that we can change the conversation and build it around an individual patient and understand what their aspirations are. If a clinician understands what I’m wanting to achieve in life … we can build a treatment regime around helping me achieve those goals. That is known to improve adherence.
“The goal, really, is to have hemophilia as a secondary consideration. Instead of saying: ‘You have hemophilia, so these are the options available to you,’ you can say, ‘what is it that you would like to achieve, and then we’ll figure out how your treatment for hemophilia can be adjusted to help you achieve those goals.’ It may sound like a nuance, but it really is reversing the conversation. The goal setting first versus your disease comes first.”
The HemACTIVE study was supported by Bayer. Mr. Skinner disclosed relationships with Bayer and other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Skinner M et al. EAHAD 2020, Abstract P304.
Fear of negative events can drive changes in activity levels among patients with hemophilia A, results of the HemACTIVE study suggest.
Patients were more likely to adjust their level of physical activity due to fear of bleeding and joint damage rather than previously experienced bleeding or joint damage.
However, past experience was more likely than fear to make patients stop physical activities altogether.
Mark Skinner, of the Institute for Policy Advancement in Washington, D.C., and colleagues presented these findings in a poster from the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.
Mr. Skinner, who is a hemophilia patient himself, said the goal of the HemACTIVE study is to better understand how hemophilia affects patients’ lives.
“We wanted to understand the limitations, challenges, and compromises of individuals living with hemophilia,” Mr. Skinner said. “What has motivated them or prevented them from living more full, active lives doing the kind of work, leisure, and social activities that those without hemophilia do? Is it treatment choice, is it satisfaction with treatment, is it fear?
“We wanted to do a comprehensive study that really looked at the intersection of treatment adherence and satisfaction, the emotional components that relate to those decisions, and the challenges and compromises so that we could better identify what we need to consider as patients think about either changing their therapy or changing their treatment regimen on existing therapy.”
Previous results from the HemACTIVE study showed that, although activity levels differed among hemophilia patients, all patients surveyed wanted greater activity levels, better protection from bleeding, better pain relief, and less-frequent infusions (EAHAD 2019, Abstract P084). In addition, patients who used factor VIII products with an extended half-life were more active and more likely to adhere to their prescribed treatment (ISTH 2019, Abstract PB0210).
The results reported at EAHAD 2020 focus on patients’ reasons for modifying physical activity. Patients and caregivers completed a screening phone interview, followed by a 25-minute, web-based questionnaire on patient activity.
There were 275 respondents – 194 patients with hemophilia A and 81 caregivers – from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and the United States. Patients had severe (61%) or moderate (39%) hemophilia A, and most (67%) were receiving prophylaxis.
Most patients (70%) were “active” or “extremely/very active,” 77% of patients adjusted their activities because of their hemophilia, and nearly half of patients stopped activities because of their disease.
Fear drives adjustments in activity
Patients were sometimes more likely to adjust their activities based on fear of experiencing an event, as opposed to previously experiencing that event.
Specifically, 44% of patients adjusted their activities due to fear of joint damage, compared with 36% of patients who made adjustments because of past significant joint damage.
Similarly, 41% of patients adjusted activities due to fear of breakthrough bleeds, compared with 36% of patients who made adjustments because of past experience with bleeds and 25% who made adjustments because of significant past bleeds.
On the other hand, a similar percentage of patients adjusted activities because of past experience with pain (43%) and fear of pain (41%). And a similar percentage of patients adjusted activities because of existing joint damage restrictions (35%) and fear of joint deterioration (32%).
Past experience prompts discontinuation of activity
Overall, 47% of patients said anxiety was the most common emotional reason for stopping physical activities. However, patients were consistently more likely to stop activities because of past experience rather than fear or anxiety.
Specifically, 50% of patients stopped activities because of significant past joint damage, 46% stopped because of developing joint problems, and 38% stopped due to fear of joint damage.
More patients stopped activities because of significant past bleeds (41%) rather than fear of breakthrough bleeds (26%). More patients stopped activities because they developed chronic pain (38%) rather than fear of pain (less than 15%). And more patients stopped activities because of existing joint damage restrictions (62%) rather than fear of joint damage (34%).
Applying results to practice: Changing the conversation
Ideally, these findings would be used to promote individualized treatment of hemophilia driven by patients’ goals, Mr. Skinner said. By better understanding patients’ feelings and motivations, clinicians may devise more personalized treatment regimens that align with patients’ goals and improve their quality of life.
Rather than adjusting treatment based only on “hard metrics” such as bleeding events, “we need to take a more holistic approach to looking at outcomes that are more important to patients,” Mr. Skinner said. This type of approach is particularly important to Mr. Skinner as someone who has severe hemophilia A.
“Because hemophilia is a life-long disease, and you’re born with it, you make conscious or unconscious adaptations throughout your life,” he explained. “Your expectations or aspirations adjust to what you’ve been told you can or cannot do because of your hemophilia. The choices I made for my career, where I live, the type of vacations I go on, the type of sports I participate in have all been limited over the course of time, which has meant that I’ve made compromises. There are a lot of individuals with hemophilia who are making decisions that are not what their life goals are.
“What this research helps me understand is that we can change the conversation and build it around an individual patient and understand what their aspirations are. If a clinician understands what I’m wanting to achieve in life … we can build a treatment regime around helping me achieve those goals. That is known to improve adherence.
“The goal, really, is to have hemophilia as a secondary consideration. Instead of saying: ‘You have hemophilia, so these are the options available to you,’ you can say, ‘what is it that you would like to achieve, and then we’ll figure out how your treatment for hemophilia can be adjusted to help you achieve those goals.’ It may sound like a nuance, but it really is reversing the conversation. The goal setting first versus your disease comes first.”
The HemACTIVE study was supported by Bayer. Mr. Skinner disclosed relationships with Bayer and other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Skinner M et al. EAHAD 2020, Abstract P304.
REPORTING FROM EAHAD 2020
What you absolutely need to know about tail coverage
A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.
On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”
He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.
The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.
Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.
“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”
Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.
In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.
“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”
Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.
Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
How tail coverage works
Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.
One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.
However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.
Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.
Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.
But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.
Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.
So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.
Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.
There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
Can you negotiate your tail coverage?
Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.
Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.
Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.
Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.
Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.
Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.
“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers
Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.
Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.
However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.
Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”
Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage
Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.
For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.
Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.
Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.
However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
Can you just go without tail coverage?
What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.
Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.
Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.
Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.
The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.
Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.
However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
How to lower your tail coverage cost
Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.
The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.
Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”
Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.
Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.
However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.
And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”
Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.
Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.
On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”
He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.
The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.
Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.
“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”
Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.
In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.
“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”
Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.
Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
How tail coverage works
Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.
One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.
However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.
Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.
Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.
But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.
Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.
So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.
Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.
There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
Can you negotiate your tail coverage?
Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.
Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.
Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.
Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.
Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.
Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.
“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers
Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.
Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.
However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.
Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”
Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage
Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.
For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.
Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.
Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.
However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
Can you just go without tail coverage?
What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.
Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.
Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.
Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.
The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.
Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.
However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
How to lower your tail coverage cost
Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.
The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.
Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”
Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.
Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.
However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.
And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”
Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.
Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.
On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”
He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.
The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.
Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.
“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”
Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.
In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.
“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”
Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.
Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
How tail coverage works
Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.
One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.
However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.
Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.
Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.
But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.
Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.
So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.
Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.
There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
Can you negotiate your tail coverage?
Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.
Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.
Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.
Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.
Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.
Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.
“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers
Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.
Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.
However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.
Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”
Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage
Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.
For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.
Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.
Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.
However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
Can you just go without tail coverage?
What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.
Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.
Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.
Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.
The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.
Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.
However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
How to lower your tail coverage cost
Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.
The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.
Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”
Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.
Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.
However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.
And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”
Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.
Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
DLBCL tops cases of HBV-associated NHL in Europe
The majority of hepatitis B virus (HBV)–associated non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cases in Western Europe were patients with advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to results of a retrospective study.
The findings suggest additional research is needed to better understand the nature of HBV-related lymphomas in nonendemic regions.
“Our aim was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with NHL and active hepatitis B in France and Italy, where the prevalence of HBV is low,” wrote Marine Lemaitre of the Centre Hospitalier de Versailles in Le Chesnay, France, and colleagues. The findings were published in the Journal of Infection.
The researchers retrospectively studied a cohort of 39 patients with B-cell NHL and active HBV infection. Clinical data was collected from medical records at three hematology centers in France and Italy. The team evaluated clinical characteristics, including histologic subtype of the lymphoma, type of treatment, patient demographics, and prognostic outcomes. In addition, they compared these data with a separate cohort of patients with B-cell NHL and active HCV infection. Among study patients, the median age at lymphoma diagnosis was 59 years (range, 29-88 years), and most were men. The most common subtype of lymphoma was DLBCL (62%), followed by other subtypes (38%), including marginal zone lymphomas, follicular lymphomas, and mantle cell lymphomas. With respect to treatment, 92% of patients with DLBCL were treated with R-CHOP or a similar regimen, while 90% of patients received antivirals, resulting in a complete remission for 75% of patients. At 12-month follow-up, 88% and 87% of patients with DLBCL and other B-cell lymphomas were alive, respectively.
“Patients had predominantly advanced-stage DLBCL, with frequent liver involvement, and frequent long-term hematological responses when they received a combination of immuno-chemotherapy and antiviral treatment,” the researchers explained. They also noted that extra-nodal involvement was frequently seen in both HBV- and HCV-associated NHL.
“Additional studies are needed to explore the lymphomagenesis of [these] association[s],” they concluded.
No funding sources were reported. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Lemaitre M et al. J Infect. 2019 Dec 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2019.12.005.
The majority of hepatitis B virus (HBV)–associated non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cases in Western Europe were patients with advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to results of a retrospective study.
The findings suggest additional research is needed to better understand the nature of HBV-related lymphomas in nonendemic regions.
“Our aim was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with NHL and active hepatitis B in France and Italy, where the prevalence of HBV is low,” wrote Marine Lemaitre of the Centre Hospitalier de Versailles in Le Chesnay, France, and colleagues. The findings were published in the Journal of Infection.
The researchers retrospectively studied a cohort of 39 patients with B-cell NHL and active HBV infection. Clinical data was collected from medical records at three hematology centers in France and Italy. The team evaluated clinical characteristics, including histologic subtype of the lymphoma, type of treatment, patient demographics, and prognostic outcomes. In addition, they compared these data with a separate cohort of patients with B-cell NHL and active HCV infection. Among study patients, the median age at lymphoma diagnosis was 59 years (range, 29-88 years), and most were men. The most common subtype of lymphoma was DLBCL (62%), followed by other subtypes (38%), including marginal zone lymphomas, follicular lymphomas, and mantle cell lymphomas. With respect to treatment, 92% of patients with DLBCL were treated with R-CHOP or a similar regimen, while 90% of patients received antivirals, resulting in a complete remission for 75% of patients. At 12-month follow-up, 88% and 87% of patients with DLBCL and other B-cell lymphomas were alive, respectively.
“Patients had predominantly advanced-stage DLBCL, with frequent liver involvement, and frequent long-term hematological responses when they received a combination of immuno-chemotherapy and antiviral treatment,” the researchers explained. They also noted that extra-nodal involvement was frequently seen in both HBV- and HCV-associated NHL.
“Additional studies are needed to explore the lymphomagenesis of [these] association[s],” they concluded.
No funding sources were reported. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Lemaitre M et al. J Infect. 2019 Dec 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2019.12.005.
The majority of hepatitis B virus (HBV)–associated non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cases in Western Europe were patients with advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to results of a retrospective study.
The findings suggest additional research is needed to better understand the nature of HBV-related lymphomas in nonendemic regions.
“Our aim was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with NHL and active hepatitis B in France and Italy, where the prevalence of HBV is low,” wrote Marine Lemaitre of the Centre Hospitalier de Versailles in Le Chesnay, France, and colleagues. The findings were published in the Journal of Infection.
The researchers retrospectively studied a cohort of 39 patients with B-cell NHL and active HBV infection. Clinical data was collected from medical records at three hematology centers in France and Italy. The team evaluated clinical characteristics, including histologic subtype of the lymphoma, type of treatment, patient demographics, and prognostic outcomes. In addition, they compared these data with a separate cohort of patients with B-cell NHL and active HCV infection. Among study patients, the median age at lymphoma diagnosis was 59 years (range, 29-88 years), and most were men. The most common subtype of lymphoma was DLBCL (62%), followed by other subtypes (38%), including marginal zone lymphomas, follicular lymphomas, and mantle cell lymphomas. With respect to treatment, 92% of patients with DLBCL were treated with R-CHOP or a similar regimen, while 90% of patients received antivirals, resulting in a complete remission for 75% of patients. At 12-month follow-up, 88% and 87% of patients with DLBCL and other B-cell lymphomas were alive, respectively.
“Patients had predominantly advanced-stage DLBCL, with frequent liver involvement, and frequent long-term hematological responses when they received a combination of immuno-chemotherapy and antiviral treatment,” the researchers explained. They also noted that extra-nodal involvement was frequently seen in both HBV- and HCV-associated NHL.
“Additional studies are needed to explore the lymphomagenesis of [these] association[s],” they concluded.
No funding sources were reported. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Lemaitre M et al. J Infect. 2019 Dec 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2019.12.005.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF INFECTION
Survival for older AML patients better with HSCT from unrelated donors
For adults aged 50 and older in first or second remission after induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia, hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) from young matched unrelated donors was associated with better overall survival and lower risk for relapse than transplants from haploidentical donors, a retrospective study suggests,
Among 823 patients from the aged 50 to 75 with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in a transplant registry, hazard ratios for both mortality and relapse were significantly higher for patients who received transplants from haploidentical siblings or offspring, compared with patients who received transplants from HLA-matched unrelated donors aged 40 or younger, reported Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, who is affiliated with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, and colleagues.
“Our findings lend support to our hypothesis that a young [matched unrelated donor] should be the donor of choice when available. Furthermore, the data presented here suggest comparable times to transplantation in both treatment groups, confirming timely access to unrelated donors is no longer a barrier,” they wrote in Haematologica.Allogeneic transplants from matched unrelated donors have been performed for more than 30 years for treatment of patients with advanced myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. More recently, T-cell-replete bone marrow or peripheral blood transplants from haploidentical relatives, with post-transplant cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil to lower risk for graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) have become commonplace worldwide, and are established treatment options for patients with myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. There are conflicting studies suggesting that outcomes with haploidentical transplants are equivalent or superior to those seen with matched unrelated donors, the authors noted, but pointed to a 2018 study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplant and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Those study results found that, among transplant recipients aged 55 through 76, graft failure, nonrelapse mortality, and overall mortality were higher when the donors were haploidentical offspring rather than HLA-matched siblings.
To see whether patients aged 50 and older with AML might benefit more with transplants from hapolidentical relatives or matched unrelated donors, the investigators used CIBMTR data to review outcomes for 823 adults with AML who received a transplant in first or second remission at one of 90 U.S. centers from 2008 through 2015.
Of this cohort, 192 patients received grafts from haploidentical donors (25% from siblings and 75% from offspring), and 631 received grafts from matched unrelated donors ranging from 18 to 40 years of age.
Although the two groups were generally similar in demographic and disease characteristics, patients in the matched unrelated donor group had significantly higher frequency of poor-risk cytogenetics (P = .03) and were significantly more likely to have received a myeloablative condition regimen than a reduced-intensity regimen (P less than .001).
In the haploidentical group, 76% of patients were in first complete remission, and the remaining 24% were in second complete remission. In the HLA-matched group the respective proportions were 83% and 17%.
The median follow-up was 42 months in the haploidentical group and 47 months in the HLA-matched group. Five-year overall survival rates were 32% and 42%, respectively.
In multivariable models controlling for donor and recipient age, sex, performance score, hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity score, cytomegalovirus serostatus, disease status, cytogenetic risk, transplant conditioning regimen intensity and transplant period, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary endpoint of overall mortality was 1.27 for haploidentical vs. HLA-matched grafts (P = .04). The HR for relapse risk with haploidentical transplants was 1.32 (P =.04). No significant differences in risk of nonrelapse mortality were found between the two study arms.
Bone marrow grafts from matched unrelated donors were associated with significantly higher risk for chronic GvHD than haploidentical grafts (HR, 3.12; P less than .001), but there was no difference in chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) incidence between peripheral blood grafts from matched unrelated donors and haploidentical grafts.
“These data support the view that matched unrelated donor transplant with donors younger than 40 years is to be preferred,” the investigators wrote.
But in an interview, coauthor
“Even though there appears to be that clinical benefit for this older AML patient population, that benefit is not huge, and when you’re also accounting for the process of finding a donor and just getting someone into transplant, a lot of us weren’t sure if this was really going to be practice changing as the field does move into haploidentical transplants being more common,” he said.
He noted that the better outcomes among patients who received transplants from matched unrelated donors may be at least in part explained by the higher proportion of patients with unrelated donors who received myeloablative conditioning regimens. In this study, 65% of patients with haploidentical donors underwent reduced-intensity conditioning with total body irradiation, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine.“If we do a comparison of equal conditioning regimens, are we really going to see the same outcomes in this setting? This might actually argue that, if you’re going to do a haploidentical transplant, you might start thinking about those newer, more ablative conditioning regimens,” he said.Dr. Tomlinson added that the data are reassuring, because of the modest size of the benefit, and because “many, many of our studies are showing that haploidentical transplants do almost as well as the matched ones. The big question mark will be what are the long-term outcomes? What happens after 3 years from those transplants? And that is going to take a lot more high quality, mature data.”In an editorial accompanying the study, Richard E. Champlin, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, noted that the more frequent use of reduced-intensity conditioning used for most patients in the haploidentical group has been associated in other studies with higher relapse rates, compared with other, more intense reduced-intensity regimens.
While he agreed that the study by Dr. Perales and colleagues “should give pause for thought, however, for those considering jumping to haploidentical transplants as a preferred approach in general,” he also noted that the study’s conclusion might not apply to cases where time-to-transplant is critical, or when other conditioning and GvHD prophylaxis regimens are used.
“The ideal study would compare optimized versions of both haploidentical and unrelated donor transplants, and use “intention-to-treat” analysis, including all patients for whom a transplant is intended from the time of initial HLA typing,” he wrote.
The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Tomlinson reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Champlin did not report disclosures.
SOURCE: Perales M-A et al. Haematologica. 2020 Jan 31;105(2):407-13.
For adults aged 50 and older in first or second remission after induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia, hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) from young matched unrelated donors was associated with better overall survival and lower risk for relapse than transplants from haploidentical donors, a retrospective study suggests,
Among 823 patients from the aged 50 to 75 with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in a transplant registry, hazard ratios for both mortality and relapse were significantly higher for patients who received transplants from haploidentical siblings or offspring, compared with patients who received transplants from HLA-matched unrelated donors aged 40 or younger, reported Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, who is affiliated with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, and colleagues.
“Our findings lend support to our hypothesis that a young [matched unrelated donor] should be the donor of choice when available. Furthermore, the data presented here suggest comparable times to transplantation in both treatment groups, confirming timely access to unrelated donors is no longer a barrier,” they wrote in Haematologica.Allogeneic transplants from matched unrelated donors have been performed for more than 30 years for treatment of patients with advanced myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. More recently, T-cell-replete bone marrow or peripheral blood transplants from haploidentical relatives, with post-transplant cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil to lower risk for graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) have become commonplace worldwide, and are established treatment options for patients with myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. There are conflicting studies suggesting that outcomes with haploidentical transplants are equivalent or superior to those seen with matched unrelated donors, the authors noted, but pointed to a 2018 study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplant and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Those study results found that, among transplant recipients aged 55 through 76, graft failure, nonrelapse mortality, and overall mortality were higher when the donors were haploidentical offspring rather than HLA-matched siblings.
To see whether patients aged 50 and older with AML might benefit more with transplants from hapolidentical relatives or matched unrelated donors, the investigators used CIBMTR data to review outcomes for 823 adults with AML who received a transplant in first or second remission at one of 90 U.S. centers from 2008 through 2015.
Of this cohort, 192 patients received grafts from haploidentical donors (25% from siblings and 75% from offspring), and 631 received grafts from matched unrelated donors ranging from 18 to 40 years of age.
Although the two groups were generally similar in demographic and disease characteristics, patients in the matched unrelated donor group had significantly higher frequency of poor-risk cytogenetics (P = .03) and were significantly more likely to have received a myeloablative condition regimen than a reduced-intensity regimen (P less than .001).
In the haploidentical group, 76% of patients were in first complete remission, and the remaining 24% were in second complete remission. In the HLA-matched group the respective proportions were 83% and 17%.
The median follow-up was 42 months in the haploidentical group and 47 months in the HLA-matched group. Five-year overall survival rates were 32% and 42%, respectively.
In multivariable models controlling for donor and recipient age, sex, performance score, hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity score, cytomegalovirus serostatus, disease status, cytogenetic risk, transplant conditioning regimen intensity and transplant period, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary endpoint of overall mortality was 1.27 for haploidentical vs. HLA-matched grafts (P = .04). The HR for relapse risk with haploidentical transplants was 1.32 (P =.04). No significant differences in risk of nonrelapse mortality were found between the two study arms.
Bone marrow grafts from matched unrelated donors were associated with significantly higher risk for chronic GvHD than haploidentical grafts (HR, 3.12; P less than .001), but there was no difference in chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) incidence between peripheral blood grafts from matched unrelated donors and haploidentical grafts.
“These data support the view that matched unrelated donor transplant with donors younger than 40 years is to be preferred,” the investigators wrote.
But in an interview, coauthor
“Even though there appears to be that clinical benefit for this older AML patient population, that benefit is not huge, and when you’re also accounting for the process of finding a donor and just getting someone into transplant, a lot of us weren’t sure if this was really going to be practice changing as the field does move into haploidentical transplants being more common,” he said.
He noted that the better outcomes among patients who received transplants from matched unrelated donors may be at least in part explained by the higher proportion of patients with unrelated donors who received myeloablative conditioning regimens. In this study, 65% of patients with haploidentical donors underwent reduced-intensity conditioning with total body irradiation, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine.“If we do a comparison of equal conditioning regimens, are we really going to see the same outcomes in this setting? This might actually argue that, if you’re going to do a haploidentical transplant, you might start thinking about those newer, more ablative conditioning regimens,” he said.Dr. Tomlinson added that the data are reassuring, because of the modest size of the benefit, and because “many, many of our studies are showing that haploidentical transplants do almost as well as the matched ones. The big question mark will be what are the long-term outcomes? What happens after 3 years from those transplants? And that is going to take a lot more high quality, mature data.”In an editorial accompanying the study, Richard E. Champlin, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, noted that the more frequent use of reduced-intensity conditioning used for most patients in the haploidentical group has been associated in other studies with higher relapse rates, compared with other, more intense reduced-intensity regimens.
While he agreed that the study by Dr. Perales and colleagues “should give pause for thought, however, for those considering jumping to haploidentical transplants as a preferred approach in general,” he also noted that the study’s conclusion might not apply to cases where time-to-transplant is critical, or when other conditioning and GvHD prophylaxis regimens are used.
“The ideal study would compare optimized versions of both haploidentical and unrelated donor transplants, and use “intention-to-treat” analysis, including all patients for whom a transplant is intended from the time of initial HLA typing,” he wrote.
The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Tomlinson reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Champlin did not report disclosures.
SOURCE: Perales M-A et al. Haematologica. 2020 Jan 31;105(2):407-13.
For adults aged 50 and older in first or second remission after induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia, hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) from young matched unrelated donors was associated with better overall survival and lower risk for relapse than transplants from haploidentical donors, a retrospective study suggests,
Among 823 patients from the aged 50 to 75 with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in a transplant registry, hazard ratios for both mortality and relapse were significantly higher for patients who received transplants from haploidentical siblings or offspring, compared with patients who received transplants from HLA-matched unrelated donors aged 40 or younger, reported Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, who is affiliated with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, and colleagues.
“Our findings lend support to our hypothesis that a young [matched unrelated donor] should be the donor of choice when available. Furthermore, the data presented here suggest comparable times to transplantation in both treatment groups, confirming timely access to unrelated donors is no longer a barrier,” they wrote in Haematologica.Allogeneic transplants from matched unrelated donors have been performed for more than 30 years for treatment of patients with advanced myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. More recently, T-cell-replete bone marrow or peripheral blood transplants from haploidentical relatives, with post-transplant cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil to lower risk for graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) have become commonplace worldwide, and are established treatment options for patients with myeloid and lymphoid malignancies. There are conflicting studies suggesting that outcomes with haploidentical transplants are equivalent or superior to those seen with matched unrelated donors, the authors noted, but pointed to a 2018 study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplant and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Those study results found that, among transplant recipients aged 55 through 76, graft failure, nonrelapse mortality, and overall mortality were higher when the donors were haploidentical offspring rather than HLA-matched siblings.
To see whether patients aged 50 and older with AML might benefit more with transplants from hapolidentical relatives or matched unrelated donors, the investigators used CIBMTR data to review outcomes for 823 adults with AML who received a transplant in first or second remission at one of 90 U.S. centers from 2008 through 2015.
Of this cohort, 192 patients received grafts from haploidentical donors (25% from siblings and 75% from offspring), and 631 received grafts from matched unrelated donors ranging from 18 to 40 years of age.
Although the two groups were generally similar in demographic and disease characteristics, patients in the matched unrelated donor group had significantly higher frequency of poor-risk cytogenetics (P = .03) and were significantly more likely to have received a myeloablative condition regimen than a reduced-intensity regimen (P less than .001).
In the haploidentical group, 76% of patients were in first complete remission, and the remaining 24% were in second complete remission. In the HLA-matched group the respective proportions were 83% and 17%.
The median follow-up was 42 months in the haploidentical group and 47 months in the HLA-matched group. Five-year overall survival rates were 32% and 42%, respectively.
In multivariable models controlling for donor and recipient age, sex, performance score, hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity score, cytomegalovirus serostatus, disease status, cytogenetic risk, transplant conditioning regimen intensity and transplant period, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary endpoint of overall mortality was 1.27 for haploidentical vs. HLA-matched grafts (P = .04). The HR for relapse risk with haploidentical transplants was 1.32 (P =.04). No significant differences in risk of nonrelapse mortality were found between the two study arms.
Bone marrow grafts from matched unrelated donors were associated with significantly higher risk for chronic GvHD than haploidentical grafts (HR, 3.12; P less than .001), but there was no difference in chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) incidence between peripheral blood grafts from matched unrelated donors and haploidentical grafts.
“These data support the view that matched unrelated donor transplant with donors younger than 40 years is to be preferred,” the investigators wrote.
But in an interview, coauthor
“Even though there appears to be that clinical benefit for this older AML patient population, that benefit is not huge, and when you’re also accounting for the process of finding a donor and just getting someone into transplant, a lot of us weren’t sure if this was really going to be practice changing as the field does move into haploidentical transplants being more common,” he said.
He noted that the better outcomes among patients who received transplants from matched unrelated donors may be at least in part explained by the higher proportion of patients with unrelated donors who received myeloablative conditioning regimens. In this study, 65% of patients with haploidentical donors underwent reduced-intensity conditioning with total body irradiation, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine.“If we do a comparison of equal conditioning regimens, are we really going to see the same outcomes in this setting? This might actually argue that, if you’re going to do a haploidentical transplant, you might start thinking about those newer, more ablative conditioning regimens,” he said.Dr. Tomlinson added that the data are reassuring, because of the modest size of the benefit, and because “many, many of our studies are showing that haploidentical transplants do almost as well as the matched ones. The big question mark will be what are the long-term outcomes? What happens after 3 years from those transplants? And that is going to take a lot more high quality, mature data.”In an editorial accompanying the study, Richard E. Champlin, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, noted that the more frequent use of reduced-intensity conditioning used for most patients in the haploidentical group has been associated in other studies with higher relapse rates, compared with other, more intense reduced-intensity regimens.
While he agreed that the study by Dr. Perales and colleagues “should give pause for thought, however, for those considering jumping to haploidentical transplants as a preferred approach in general,” he also noted that the study’s conclusion might not apply to cases where time-to-transplant is critical, or when other conditioning and GvHD prophylaxis regimens are used.
“The ideal study would compare optimized versions of both haploidentical and unrelated donor transplants, and use “intention-to-treat” analysis, including all patients for whom a transplant is intended from the time of initial HLA typing,” he wrote.
The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Tomlinson reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Champlin did not report disclosures.
SOURCE: Perales M-A et al. Haematologica. 2020 Jan 31;105(2):407-13.
FROM HAEMATOLOGICA
CMS proposes second specialty tier for Medicare drugs
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ latest maneuver to combat rising drug prices is the proposed addition of a second specialty drug tier for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.
The proposal is part of a broader proposed update to Medicare Parts C and D for contract years 2021 and 2022.
In a fact sheet highlighting various elements of the overall proposal, CMS noted that Part D plan sponsors and pharmacy benefit managers have been requesting the option to add a second “preferred” specialty tier that would “encourage the use of more preferred, less expensive agents, reduce enrollee cost sharing, and reduce costs to CMS.”
Currently, all pharmaceuticals with a cost greater than $670 are placed in a single specialty tier.
During a Feb. 5 press briefing, CMS Administrator Seema Verma described this change as “giving plans more negotiating power so they can lower prices for beneficiaries even further.”
Ms. Verma used a hypothetical example of two rheumatoid arthritis drugs to illustrate how the change will work. Currently, if both are over the $670 threshold, they would both be on the specialty tier with the same cost sharing. “Creating a second preferred specialty tier would allow for a different copay and fosters a more competitive environment that places Part D plans in a better position to negotiate the price of similar drugs and pass those savings onto the patient through lower cost sharing,” she said.
CMS is proposing to allow plans to implement a preferred specialty tier for the 2021 plan year.
The agency is also seeking to drive more generic drug use as a means of lowering costs.
Ms. Verma noted that, typically, even after a generic drug is launched, health plan sponsors prefer to drive patients to the brand name product, if they can secure a greater rebate from the manufacturer.
In a separate Feb. 5 blog post, Ms. Verma noted that when a brand was included on a formulary, the generic was also on the formulary 91.8% of the time. For the times in which the generic was not, it was typically because the wholesale cost of the generic was only 5%-15% lower than the brand wholesale cost.
In an effort to encourage use of generics, CMS is seeking comment on the development of measures of generic and biosimilar use in Medicare Part D that could be incorporated in health plan star ratings.
Some of the measures proposed in the blog post include the generic substitution rate, the generic therapeutic alternative opportunity rate (which measures the number of brand fills divided by the sum of the brand and generic fills when both are available), and the biosimilar utilization rate.
[email protected]
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ latest maneuver to combat rising drug prices is the proposed addition of a second specialty drug tier for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.
The proposal is part of a broader proposed update to Medicare Parts C and D for contract years 2021 and 2022.
In a fact sheet highlighting various elements of the overall proposal, CMS noted that Part D plan sponsors and pharmacy benefit managers have been requesting the option to add a second “preferred” specialty tier that would “encourage the use of more preferred, less expensive agents, reduce enrollee cost sharing, and reduce costs to CMS.”
Currently, all pharmaceuticals with a cost greater than $670 are placed in a single specialty tier.
During a Feb. 5 press briefing, CMS Administrator Seema Verma described this change as “giving plans more negotiating power so they can lower prices for beneficiaries even further.”
Ms. Verma used a hypothetical example of two rheumatoid arthritis drugs to illustrate how the change will work. Currently, if both are over the $670 threshold, they would both be on the specialty tier with the same cost sharing. “Creating a second preferred specialty tier would allow for a different copay and fosters a more competitive environment that places Part D plans in a better position to negotiate the price of similar drugs and pass those savings onto the patient through lower cost sharing,” she said.
CMS is proposing to allow plans to implement a preferred specialty tier for the 2021 plan year.
The agency is also seeking to drive more generic drug use as a means of lowering costs.
Ms. Verma noted that, typically, even after a generic drug is launched, health plan sponsors prefer to drive patients to the brand name product, if they can secure a greater rebate from the manufacturer.
In a separate Feb. 5 blog post, Ms. Verma noted that when a brand was included on a formulary, the generic was also on the formulary 91.8% of the time. For the times in which the generic was not, it was typically because the wholesale cost of the generic was only 5%-15% lower than the brand wholesale cost.
In an effort to encourage use of generics, CMS is seeking comment on the development of measures of generic and biosimilar use in Medicare Part D that could be incorporated in health plan star ratings.
Some of the measures proposed in the blog post include the generic substitution rate, the generic therapeutic alternative opportunity rate (which measures the number of brand fills divided by the sum of the brand and generic fills when both are available), and the biosimilar utilization rate.
[email protected]
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ latest maneuver to combat rising drug prices is the proposed addition of a second specialty drug tier for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.
The proposal is part of a broader proposed update to Medicare Parts C and D for contract years 2021 and 2022.
In a fact sheet highlighting various elements of the overall proposal, CMS noted that Part D plan sponsors and pharmacy benefit managers have been requesting the option to add a second “preferred” specialty tier that would “encourage the use of more preferred, less expensive agents, reduce enrollee cost sharing, and reduce costs to CMS.”
Currently, all pharmaceuticals with a cost greater than $670 are placed in a single specialty tier.
During a Feb. 5 press briefing, CMS Administrator Seema Verma described this change as “giving plans more negotiating power so they can lower prices for beneficiaries even further.”
Ms. Verma used a hypothetical example of two rheumatoid arthritis drugs to illustrate how the change will work. Currently, if both are over the $670 threshold, they would both be on the specialty tier with the same cost sharing. “Creating a second preferred specialty tier would allow for a different copay and fosters a more competitive environment that places Part D plans in a better position to negotiate the price of similar drugs and pass those savings onto the patient through lower cost sharing,” she said.
CMS is proposing to allow plans to implement a preferred specialty tier for the 2021 plan year.
The agency is also seeking to drive more generic drug use as a means of lowering costs.
Ms. Verma noted that, typically, even after a generic drug is launched, health plan sponsors prefer to drive patients to the brand name product, if they can secure a greater rebate from the manufacturer.
In a separate Feb. 5 blog post, Ms. Verma noted that when a brand was included on a formulary, the generic was also on the formulary 91.8% of the time. For the times in which the generic was not, it was typically because the wholesale cost of the generic was only 5%-15% lower than the brand wholesale cost.
In an effort to encourage use of generics, CMS is seeking comment on the development of measures of generic and biosimilar use in Medicare Part D that could be incorporated in health plan star ratings.
Some of the measures proposed in the blog post include the generic substitution rate, the generic therapeutic alternative opportunity rate (which measures the number of brand fills divided by the sum of the brand and generic fills when both are available), and the biosimilar utilization rate.
[email protected]
Flow-mediated dilation of brachial artery predicts renal dysfunction in sickle cell disease
Sonographic flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the brachial artery predicts renal dysfunction in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), according to investigators.
This is the first study to show that FMD – a surrogate biomarker for endothelial dysfunction – inversely correlates with renal artery resistivity index (RARI) and serum cystatin C, reported lead author Oluwagbemiga Oluwole Ayoola, MBChB, of Obafemi Awolowo University in Ile-Ife, Nigeria, and colleagues.
“[B]rachial artery FMD is an essential test in the management of SCD patients for noninvasive assessment of the vascular endothelium,” the investigators wrote in Kidney360. They went on to suggest that FMD could be used to detect early renal impairment in sickle cell disease.
The study involved 44 patients with steady-state, homozygous SCD (HbSS) and 33 age- and sex-matched controls (HbAA). Eligibility criteria excluded individuals with risk factors for endothelial dysfunction, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, as well as those with thalassemia carrier traits.
For each participant, various data were gathered, including demographic and clinical characteristics, serum assays, FMD measurement of the brachial artery, and RARI.
Results showed that patients with sickle cell disease had a significantly lower median FMD value than that of healthy controls (3.44 vs. 5.35; P = .043).
Among patients with SCD, FMD was negatively and independently correlated with RARI (r = -.307; P = .042) and serum cystatin C (r = -.372; P = .013), correlations that the investigators described as “modest.” FMD was not associated with any other biomarkers of SCD severity, such as homocysteine, fetal hemoglobin, or soluble platelet selectin.
Patients in the SCD cohort were further subdivided into two groups based on an FMD cut-off value of 5.35, which was the median measurement among healthy controls. This revealed that median cystatin C level was significantly higher in patients with an FMD value less than 5.35, compared with those who had an FMD value of 5.35 or more.
“[The study] findings suggest that SCD patients with impaired FMD are more likely to have impaired renal function,” the investigators wrote. The results support previous research, they added.
“Even though our findings show relationships rather than causation, we believe it is still a step forward in the ongoing quest to unravel the mysteries of this genetic disease,” they concluded. “Determining the exact age at which FMD impairment [begins] in children with sickle cell disease could be the subject of a future study.”
The study was funded by the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ayoola et al. Kidney360. 2020 Jan 30. doi: 10.34067/KID.0000142019.
Sonographic flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the brachial artery predicts renal dysfunction in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), according to investigators.
This is the first study to show that FMD – a surrogate biomarker for endothelial dysfunction – inversely correlates with renal artery resistivity index (RARI) and serum cystatin C, reported lead author Oluwagbemiga Oluwole Ayoola, MBChB, of Obafemi Awolowo University in Ile-Ife, Nigeria, and colleagues.
“[B]rachial artery FMD is an essential test in the management of SCD patients for noninvasive assessment of the vascular endothelium,” the investigators wrote in Kidney360. They went on to suggest that FMD could be used to detect early renal impairment in sickle cell disease.
The study involved 44 patients with steady-state, homozygous SCD (HbSS) and 33 age- and sex-matched controls (HbAA). Eligibility criteria excluded individuals with risk factors for endothelial dysfunction, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, as well as those with thalassemia carrier traits.
For each participant, various data were gathered, including demographic and clinical characteristics, serum assays, FMD measurement of the brachial artery, and RARI.
Results showed that patients with sickle cell disease had a significantly lower median FMD value than that of healthy controls (3.44 vs. 5.35; P = .043).
Among patients with SCD, FMD was negatively and independently correlated with RARI (r = -.307; P = .042) and serum cystatin C (r = -.372; P = .013), correlations that the investigators described as “modest.” FMD was not associated with any other biomarkers of SCD severity, such as homocysteine, fetal hemoglobin, or soluble platelet selectin.
Patients in the SCD cohort were further subdivided into two groups based on an FMD cut-off value of 5.35, which was the median measurement among healthy controls. This revealed that median cystatin C level was significantly higher in patients with an FMD value less than 5.35, compared with those who had an FMD value of 5.35 or more.
“[The study] findings suggest that SCD patients with impaired FMD are more likely to have impaired renal function,” the investigators wrote. The results support previous research, they added.
“Even though our findings show relationships rather than causation, we believe it is still a step forward in the ongoing quest to unravel the mysteries of this genetic disease,” they concluded. “Determining the exact age at which FMD impairment [begins] in children with sickle cell disease could be the subject of a future study.”
The study was funded by the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ayoola et al. Kidney360. 2020 Jan 30. doi: 10.34067/KID.0000142019.
Sonographic flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the brachial artery predicts renal dysfunction in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), according to investigators.
This is the first study to show that FMD – a surrogate biomarker for endothelial dysfunction – inversely correlates with renal artery resistivity index (RARI) and serum cystatin C, reported lead author Oluwagbemiga Oluwole Ayoola, MBChB, of Obafemi Awolowo University in Ile-Ife, Nigeria, and colleagues.
“[B]rachial artery FMD is an essential test in the management of SCD patients for noninvasive assessment of the vascular endothelium,” the investigators wrote in Kidney360. They went on to suggest that FMD could be used to detect early renal impairment in sickle cell disease.
The study involved 44 patients with steady-state, homozygous SCD (HbSS) and 33 age- and sex-matched controls (HbAA). Eligibility criteria excluded individuals with risk factors for endothelial dysfunction, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, as well as those with thalassemia carrier traits.
For each participant, various data were gathered, including demographic and clinical characteristics, serum assays, FMD measurement of the brachial artery, and RARI.
Results showed that patients with sickle cell disease had a significantly lower median FMD value than that of healthy controls (3.44 vs. 5.35; P = .043).
Among patients with SCD, FMD was negatively and independently correlated with RARI (r = -.307; P = .042) and serum cystatin C (r = -.372; P = .013), correlations that the investigators described as “modest.” FMD was not associated with any other biomarkers of SCD severity, such as homocysteine, fetal hemoglobin, or soluble platelet selectin.
Patients in the SCD cohort were further subdivided into two groups based on an FMD cut-off value of 5.35, which was the median measurement among healthy controls. This revealed that median cystatin C level was significantly higher in patients with an FMD value less than 5.35, compared with those who had an FMD value of 5.35 or more.
“[The study] findings suggest that SCD patients with impaired FMD are more likely to have impaired renal function,” the investigators wrote. The results support previous research, they added.
“Even though our findings show relationships rather than causation, we believe it is still a step forward in the ongoing quest to unravel the mysteries of this genetic disease,” they concluded. “Determining the exact age at which FMD impairment [begins] in children with sickle cell disease could be the subject of a future study.”
The study was funded by the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ayoola et al. Kidney360. 2020 Jan 30. doi: 10.34067/KID.0000142019.
FROM KIDNEY360
CRISPR-engineered T cells may be safe for cancer, but do they work?
according to a report in Science.
The results of no harm support this “promising” area of cancer immunotherapy, according to study investigator Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and colleagues.
However, there was no evidence of benefit in this trial. One patient transfused with CRISPR-engineered T cells has since died, and the other two have moved on to other treatments.
“The big question that remains unanswered by this study is whether gene-edited, engineered T cells are effective against advanced cancer,” Jennifer Hamilton, PhD, and Jennifer Doudna, PhD, both of the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The study enrolled six patients with refractory cancer, and three of them received CRISPR-engineered T cells. Two patients had multiple myeloma, and one had metastatic sarcoma.
Dr. Stadtmauer and colleagues drew blood from the patients, isolated the T cells, and used CRISPR-Cas9 to modify the cells. The T cells were transfected with Cas9 protein complexed with single guide RNAs against TRAC and TRBC (genes encoding the T-cell receptor chains TCR-alpha and TCR-beta) as well as PDCD1 (a gene encoding programmed cell death protein 1). The T cells were then transduced with a lentiviral vector to express a transgenic NY-ESO-1 cancer-specific T-cell receptor.
The investigators expanded the cell lines and infused them back into the patients after administering lymphodepleting chemotherapy. The sarcoma patient initially had a 50% decrease in a large abdominal mass, but all three patients ultimately progressed.
The editorialists noted that gene disruption efficiencies in this study were “modest,” ranging from 15% to 45%, but the investigators used a protocol from 2016, when the study was given the go-ahead by the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. With current protocols, gene disruption efficiencies can exceed 90%, which means patients might do better in subsequent trials.
There was no more than mild toxicity in this trial, and most adverse events were attributed to the lymphodepleting chemotherapy.
There was concern about potential rejection of infused cells because of preexisting immune responses to Cas9, but it doesn’t seem “to be a barrier to the application of this promising technology,” the investigators said.
They noted that “the stable engraftment of our engineered T cells is remarkably different from previously reported trials ... where the half-life of the cells in blood was [about] 1 week. Biopsy specimens of bone marrow in the myeloma patients and tumor in the sarcoma patient demonstrated trafficking of the engineered T cells to the tumor in all three patients” beyond that point. The decay half-life of the transduced cells was 20.3 days, 121.8 days, and 293.5 days in these patients.
The editorialists said the details in the report are a model for other researchers to follow, but “as more gene-based therapies are demonstrated to be safe and effective, the barrier to clinical translation will become cell manufacturing and administration.”
This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and others. Dr. Stadtmauer didn’t report any disclosures, but other investigators disclosed patent applications and commercialization efforts. Dr. Doudna disclosed that she is a cofounder or adviser for several companies developing gene-editing therapeutics.
SOURCE: Stadtmauer EA et al. Science. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1126/science.aba7365.
according to a report in Science.
The results of no harm support this “promising” area of cancer immunotherapy, according to study investigator Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and colleagues.
However, there was no evidence of benefit in this trial. One patient transfused with CRISPR-engineered T cells has since died, and the other two have moved on to other treatments.
“The big question that remains unanswered by this study is whether gene-edited, engineered T cells are effective against advanced cancer,” Jennifer Hamilton, PhD, and Jennifer Doudna, PhD, both of the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The study enrolled six patients with refractory cancer, and three of them received CRISPR-engineered T cells. Two patients had multiple myeloma, and one had metastatic sarcoma.
Dr. Stadtmauer and colleagues drew blood from the patients, isolated the T cells, and used CRISPR-Cas9 to modify the cells. The T cells were transfected with Cas9 protein complexed with single guide RNAs against TRAC and TRBC (genes encoding the T-cell receptor chains TCR-alpha and TCR-beta) as well as PDCD1 (a gene encoding programmed cell death protein 1). The T cells were then transduced with a lentiviral vector to express a transgenic NY-ESO-1 cancer-specific T-cell receptor.
The investigators expanded the cell lines and infused them back into the patients after administering lymphodepleting chemotherapy. The sarcoma patient initially had a 50% decrease in a large abdominal mass, but all three patients ultimately progressed.
The editorialists noted that gene disruption efficiencies in this study were “modest,” ranging from 15% to 45%, but the investigators used a protocol from 2016, when the study was given the go-ahead by the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. With current protocols, gene disruption efficiencies can exceed 90%, which means patients might do better in subsequent trials.
There was no more than mild toxicity in this trial, and most adverse events were attributed to the lymphodepleting chemotherapy.
There was concern about potential rejection of infused cells because of preexisting immune responses to Cas9, but it doesn’t seem “to be a barrier to the application of this promising technology,” the investigators said.
They noted that “the stable engraftment of our engineered T cells is remarkably different from previously reported trials ... where the half-life of the cells in blood was [about] 1 week. Biopsy specimens of bone marrow in the myeloma patients and tumor in the sarcoma patient demonstrated trafficking of the engineered T cells to the tumor in all three patients” beyond that point. The decay half-life of the transduced cells was 20.3 days, 121.8 days, and 293.5 days in these patients.
The editorialists said the details in the report are a model for other researchers to follow, but “as more gene-based therapies are demonstrated to be safe and effective, the barrier to clinical translation will become cell manufacturing and administration.”
This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and others. Dr. Stadtmauer didn’t report any disclosures, but other investigators disclosed patent applications and commercialization efforts. Dr. Doudna disclosed that she is a cofounder or adviser for several companies developing gene-editing therapeutics.
SOURCE: Stadtmauer EA et al. Science. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1126/science.aba7365.
according to a report in Science.
The results of no harm support this “promising” area of cancer immunotherapy, according to study investigator Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and colleagues.
However, there was no evidence of benefit in this trial. One patient transfused with CRISPR-engineered T cells has since died, and the other two have moved on to other treatments.
“The big question that remains unanswered by this study is whether gene-edited, engineered T cells are effective against advanced cancer,” Jennifer Hamilton, PhD, and Jennifer Doudna, PhD, both of the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The study enrolled six patients with refractory cancer, and three of them received CRISPR-engineered T cells. Two patients had multiple myeloma, and one had metastatic sarcoma.
Dr. Stadtmauer and colleagues drew blood from the patients, isolated the T cells, and used CRISPR-Cas9 to modify the cells. The T cells were transfected with Cas9 protein complexed with single guide RNAs against TRAC and TRBC (genes encoding the T-cell receptor chains TCR-alpha and TCR-beta) as well as PDCD1 (a gene encoding programmed cell death protein 1). The T cells were then transduced with a lentiviral vector to express a transgenic NY-ESO-1 cancer-specific T-cell receptor.
The investigators expanded the cell lines and infused them back into the patients after administering lymphodepleting chemotherapy. The sarcoma patient initially had a 50% decrease in a large abdominal mass, but all three patients ultimately progressed.
The editorialists noted that gene disruption efficiencies in this study were “modest,” ranging from 15% to 45%, but the investigators used a protocol from 2016, when the study was given the go-ahead by the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. With current protocols, gene disruption efficiencies can exceed 90%, which means patients might do better in subsequent trials.
There was no more than mild toxicity in this trial, and most adverse events were attributed to the lymphodepleting chemotherapy.
There was concern about potential rejection of infused cells because of preexisting immune responses to Cas9, but it doesn’t seem “to be a barrier to the application of this promising technology,” the investigators said.
They noted that “the stable engraftment of our engineered T cells is remarkably different from previously reported trials ... where the half-life of the cells in blood was [about] 1 week. Biopsy specimens of bone marrow in the myeloma patients and tumor in the sarcoma patient demonstrated trafficking of the engineered T cells to the tumor in all three patients” beyond that point. The decay half-life of the transduced cells was 20.3 days, 121.8 days, and 293.5 days in these patients.
The editorialists said the details in the report are a model for other researchers to follow, but “as more gene-based therapies are demonstrated to be safe and effective, the barrier to clinical translation will become cell manufacturing and administration.”
This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and others. Dr. Stadtmauer didn’t report any disclosures, but other investigators disclosed patent applications and commercialization efforts. Dr. Doudna disclosed that she is a cofounder or adviser for several companies developing gene-editing therapeutics.
SOURCE: Stadtmauer EA et al. Science. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1126/science.aba7365.
FROM SCIENCE
The power of an odd couple
The time has come for good men and women to unite and rise up against a common foe. For too long nurses and doctors have labored under the tyranny of a dictator who claimed to help them provide high-quality care for their patients while at the same time cutting their paperwork to nil. But like most autocrats he failed to engage his subjects in a meaningful dialogue as each new version of his promised improvements rolled off the drawing board. When the caregivers were slow to adopt these new nonsystems he offered them financial incentives and issued threats to their survival. Although they were warned that there might be uncomfortable adjustment periods, the caregivers were promised that the steep learning curves would level out and their professional lives would again be valued and productive.
Of course, the dictator is not a single person but a motley and disorganized conglomerate of user- and patient-unfriendly electronic health record nonsystems. Ask almost any nurse or physician for her feelings about computer-based medical record systems, and you will hear tales of long hours, disengagement, and frustration. Caregivers are unhappy at all levels, and patients have grown tired of their nurses and physicians spending most of their time looking at computer screens.
You certainly have heard this all before. But you are hearing it in hospital hallways and grocery store checkout lines as a low rumble of discontent emerging from separate individuals, not as a well-articulated and widely distributed voice of physicians as a group. To some extent this relative silence is because there is no such group, at least not in same mold as a labor union. The term “labor union” may make you uncomfortable. But given the current climate in medicine, unionizing may be the best and only way to effect change.
But organizing to effect change in the workplace isn’t part of the physician genome. In the 1960s, a group of house officers in Boston engaged in a heal-in to successfully improve their salaries and working conditions. But over the ensuing half century physicians have remained tragically silent in the face of a changing workplace landscape in which they have gone from being independent owner operators in control of their destinies to becoming employees feeling powerless to improve their working conditions. This perceived impotence has escalated in the face of the challenge posed by the introduction of dysfunctional EHRs.
Ironically, a solution is at almost every physician’s elbow. In a recent New York Times opinion piece Theresa Brown and Stephen Bergman acknowledge that physicians don’t seem prepared to mount a meaningful response to the challenge to the failed promise of EHRs (“Doctors, Nurses and the Paperwork Crisis That Could Unite Them,” Dec. 31, 2019). They point out that, over the last half century, physicians have remained isolated on the sidelines, finding just enough voice to grumble. Nurses have in a variety of situations organized to effect change in their working conditions – in some cases by forming labor unions.
The authors of this op-ed piece, a physician and a nurse, make a strong argument that the time has come for nurses and doctors shake off the shackles of their stereotypic roles and join in creating a loud, forceful, and effective voice to demand a working environment in which the computer functions as an asset and no longer as the terrible burden it has become. Neither group has the power to do it alone, but together they may be able to turn the tide. For physicians it will probably mean venturing several steps outside of their comfort zone. But working shoulder to shoulder with nurses may provide the courage to speak out.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
The time has come for good men and women to unite and rise up against a common foe. For too long nurses and doctors have labored under the tyranny of a dictator who claimed to help them provide high-quality care for their patients while at the same time cutting their paperwork to nil. But like most autocrats he failed to engage his subjects in a meaningful dialogue as each new version of his promised improvements rolled off the drawing board. When the caregivers were slow to adopt these new nonsystems he offered them financial incentives and issued threats to their survival. Although they were warned that there might be uncomfortable adjustment periods, the caregivers were promised that the steep learning curves would level out and their professional lives would again be valued and productive.
Of course, the dictator is not a single person but a motley and disorganized conglomerate of user- and patient-unfriendly electronic health record nonsystems. Ask almost any nurse or physician for her feelings about computer-based medical record systems, and you will hear tales of long hours, disengagement, and frustration. Caregivers are unhappy at all levels, and patients have grown tired of their nurses and physicians spending most of their time looking at computer screens.
You certainly have heard this all before. But you are hearing it in hospital hallways and grocery store checkout lines as a low rumble of discontent emerging from separate individuals, not as a well-articulated and widely distributed voice of physicians as a group. To some extent this relative silence is because there is no such group, at least not in same mold as a labor union. The term “labor union” may make you uncomfortable. But given the current climate in medicine, unionizing may be the best and only way to effect change.
But organizing to effect change in the workplace isn’t part of the physician genome. In the 1960s, a group of house officers in Boston engaged in a heal-in to successfully improve their salaries and working conditions. But over the ensuing half century physicians have remained tragically silent in the face of a changing workplace landscape in which they have gone from being independent owner operators in control of their destinies to becoming employees feeling powerless to improve their working conditions. This perceived impotence has escalated in the face of the challenge posed by the introduction of dysfunctional EHRs.
Ironically, a solution is at almost every physician’s elbow. In a recent New York Times opinion piece Theresa Brown and Stephen Bergman acknowledge that physicians don’t seem prepared to mount a meaningful response to the challenge to the failed promise of EHRs (“Doctors, Nurses and the Paperwork Crisis That Could Unite Them,” Dec. 31, 2019). They point out that, over the last half century, physicians have remained isolated on the sidelines, finding just enough voice to grumble. Nurses have in a variety of situations organized to effect change in their working conditions – in some cases by forming labor unions.
The authors of this op-ed piece, a physician and a nurse, make a strong argument that the time has come for nurses and doctors shake off the shackles of their stereotypic roles and join in creating a loud, forceful, and effective voice to demand a working environment in which the computer functions as an asset and no longer as the terrible burden it has become. Neither group has the power to do it alone, but together they may be able to turn the tide. For physicians it will probably mean venturing several steps outside of their comfort zone. But working shoulder to shoulder with nurses may provide the courage to speak out.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
The time has come for good men and women to unite and rise up against a common foe. For too long nurses and doctors have labored under the tyranny of a dictator who claimed to help them provide high-quality care for their patients while at the same time cutting their paperwork to nil. But like most autocrats he failed to engage his subjects in a meaningful dialogue as each new version of his promised improvements rolled off the drawing board. When the caregivers were slow to adopt these new nonsystems he offered them financial incentives and issued threats to their survival. Although they were warned that there might be uncomfortable adjustment periods, the caregivers were promised that the steep learning curves would level out and their professional lives would again be valued and productive.
Of course, the dictator is not a single person but a motley and disorganized conglomerate of user- and patient-unfriendly electronic health record nonsystems. Ask almost any nurse or physician for her feelings about computer-based medical record systems, and you will hear tales of long hours, disengagement, and frustration. Caregivers are unhappy at all levels, and patients have grown tired of their nurses and physicians spending most of their time looking at computer screens.
You certainly have heard this all before. But you are hearing it in hospital hallways and grocery store checkout lines as a low rumble of discontent emerging from separate individuals, not as a well-articulated and widely distributed voice of physicians as a group. To some extent this relative silence is because there is no such group, at least not in same mold as a labor union. The term “labor union” may make you uncomfortable. But given the current climate in medicine, unionizing may be the best and only way to effect change.
But organizing to effect change in the workplace isn’t part of the physician genome. In the 1960s, a group of house officers in Boston engaged in a heal-in to successfully improve their salaries and working conditions. But over the ensuing half century physicians have remained tragically silent in the face of a changing workplace landscape in which they have gone from being independent owner operators in control of their destinies to becoming employees feeling powerless to improve their working conditions. This perceived impotence has escalated in the face of the challenge posed by the introduction of dysfunctional EHRs.
Ironically, a solution is at almost every physician’s elbow. In a recent New York Times opinion piece Theresa Brown and Stephen Bergman acknowledge that physicians don’t seem prepared to mount a meaningful response to the challenge to the failed promise of EHRs (“Doctors, Nurses and the Paperwork Crisis That Could Unite Them,” Dec. 31, 2019). They point out that, over the last half century, physicians have remained isolated on the sidelines, finding just enough voice to grumble. Nurses have in a variety of situations organized to effect change in their working conditions – in some cases by forming labor unions.
The authors of this op-ed piece, a physician and a nurse, make a strong argument that the time has come for nurses and doctors shake off the shackles of their stereotypic roles and join in creating a loud, forceful, and effective voice to demand a working environment in which the computer functions as an asset and no longer as the terrible burden it has become. Neither group has the power to do it alone, but together they may be able to turn the tide. For physicians it will probably mean venturing several steps outside of their comfort zone. But working shoulder to shoulder with nurses may provide the courage to speak out.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Global project reveals cancer’s genomic playbook
A massive collaborative project spanning four continents and 744 research centers has revealed driver mutations in both protein-coding and noncoding regions of 38 cancer types.
The Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) is an integrative analysis of the whole-genome sequences from 2,658 donors across 38 common tumor types. The findings are expected to add exponentially to what’s currently known about the complex genetics of cancer, and they point to possible strategies for improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and care.
Six articles summarizing the findings are presented in a series of papers in Nature, and 16 more appear in affiliated publications.
“It’s humbling that it was only 14 years ago that the genomics community sequenced its very first cancer exome, and it was able to identify mutations within the roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes in the human cell,” investigator Lincoln Stein, MD, PhD, of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research in Toronto, said in a telephone briefing.
Exome sequencing, however, covers only protein-coding genomic regions, which constitute only about 1% of the entire genome, “so assembling an accurate portrait of the cancer genome using just the exome data is like trying to put together a 100,000-piece jigsaw puzzle when you’re missing 99% of the pieces and there’s no puzzle box with a completed picture to guide you,” Dr. Stein said.
Members of the PCAWG from centers in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia screened 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and matched samples of noncancerous tissues from the same individuals, along with 1,188 transcriptomes cataloging the sequences and expression of RNA transcripts in a given tumor. The 6-year project netted more than 800 terabytes of genomic data, roughly equivalent to the digital holdings of the U.S. Library of Congress multiplied by 11.
The findings are summarized in papers focusing on cancer drivers, noncoding changes, mutational signatures, structural variants, cancer evolution over time, and RNA alterations.
Driver mutations
Investigators found that the average cancer genome contains four or five driver mutations located in both coding and noncoding regions. They also found, however, that in approximately 5% of cases no driver mutations could be identified.
A substantial proportion of tumors displayed “hallmarks of genomic catastrophes.” About 22% of tumors exhibited chromothripsis, a mutational process marked by hundreds or even thousands of clustered chromosomal rearrangements. About 18% showed chromoplexy, which is characterized by scattering and rearrangement of multiple strands of DNA from one or more chromosomes.
Analyzing driver point mutations and structural variants in noncoding regions, the investigators found the usual suspects – previously reported culprits – as well as novel candidates.
For example, they identified point mutations in the five prime region of the tumor suppressor gene TP53 and the three prime untranslated regions of NFKBIZ (a nuclear factor kappa B inhibitor) and TOB1 (an antiproliferative protein), focal deletion in BRD4 (a transcriptional and epigenetic regulator), and rearrangements in chromosomal loci in members of the AKR1C family of enzymes thought to play a role in disease progression.
In addition, investigators identified mutations in noncoding regions of TERT, a telomerase gene. These mutations result in ramped-up expression of telomerase, which in turn promotes uncontrollable division of tumor cells.
Mutational signatures
In a related line of research, PCAWG investigators identified new DNA mutational signatures ranging from single nucleotide polymorphisms to insertions and deletions, as well as to structural variants – rearrangements of large sections of the genome.
“The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses, enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures, and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated – but distinct – DNA damage, repair, and/or replication mechanisms. By estimating the contribution of each signature to the mutational catalogs of individual cancer genomes, we revealed associations of signatures to exogenous or endogenous exposures, as well as to defective DNA maintenance processes,” the investigators wrote.
They also acknowledged, however, that “many signatures are of unknown cause.”
Cancer evolution
One of the six main studies focused on the evolution of cancer over time. Instead of providing a “snapshot” of the genome as captured by sequencing tissue from a single biopsy, consortium investigators created full-length features of the “life history and evolution of mutational processes and driver mutation sequences.”
They found that early cancer development was marked by relatively few mutations in driver genes and by identifiable copy-number gains, including trisomy 7 in glioblastoma, and an abnormal mirroring of the arms (isochromosome) of chromosome 17 in medulloblastoma.
In 40% of the samples, however, there were significant changes in the mutational spectrum as the cancers grew, leading to a near quadrupling of driver genes and increased genomic instability in later-stage tumors.
“Copy-number alterations often occur in mitotic crises and lead to simultaneous gains of chromosomal segments,” the investigators wrote. “Timing analyses suggest that driver mutations often precede diagnosis by many years, if not decades. Together, these results determine the evolutionary trajectories of cancer and highlight opportunities for early cancer detection.”
Implications for cancer care
“When I used to treat patients with cancer, I was always completely amazed and puzzled by how two patients could have what looked like the same tumor. It would look the same under the microscope, have the same size, and the two patients would receive exactly the same treatment, but the two patients would have completely opposite outcomes; one would survive, and one would die. What this analysis … has done is really laid bare the reasons for that unpredictability in clinical outcomes,” Peter Campbell, MD, PhD, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England, said during the telebriefing.
“The most striking finding out of all of the suite of papers is just how different one person’s cancer genome is from another person’s. We see thousands of different combinations of mutations that can cause the cancer, and more than 80 different underlying processes generating the mutations in a cancer, and that leads to very different shapes and patterns in the genome that result,” he added.
On a positive note, the research shows that one or more driver mutations can be identified in about 95% of all cancer patients, and it elucidates the sequence of events leading to oncogenesis and tumor evolution, providing opportunities for earlier identification and potential interventions to prevent cancer, Dr. Campbell said.
The PCAWG was a collaborative multinational effort with multiple funding sources and many investigators.
SOURCE: Nature. 2020 Feb 5. https://www.nature.com/collections/pcawg/
A massive collaborative project spanning four continents and 744 research centers has revealed driver mutations in both protein-coding and noncoding regions of 38 cancer types.
The Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) is an integrative analysis of the whole-genome sequences from 2,658 donors across 38 common tumor types. The findings are expected to add exponentially to what’s currently known about the complex genetics of cancer, and they point to possible strategies for improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and care.
Six articles summarizing the findings are presented in a series of papers in Nature, and 16 more appear in affiliated publications.
“It’s humbling that it was only 14 years ago that the genomics community sequenced its very first cancer exome, and it was able to identify mutations within the roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes in the human cell,” investigator Lincoln Stein, MD, PhD, of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research in Toronto, said in a telephone briefing.
Exome sequencing, however, covers only protein-coding genomic regions, which constitute only about 1% of the entire genome, “so assembling an accurate portrait of the cancer genome using just the exome data is like trying to put together a 100,000-piece jigsaw puzzle when you’re missing 99% of the pieces and there’s no puzzle box with a completed picture to guide you,” Dr. Stein said.
Members of the PCAWG from centers in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia screened 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and matched samples of noncancerous tissues from the same individuals, along with 1,188 transcriptomes cataloging the sequences and expression of RNA transcripts in a given tumor. The 6-year project netted more than 800 terabytes of genomic data, roughly equivalent to the digital holdings of the U.S. Library of Congress multiplied by 11.
The findings are summarized in papers focusing on cancer drivers, noncoding changes, mutational signatures, structural variants, cancer evolution over time, and RNA alterations.
Driver mutations
Investigators found that the average cancer genome contains four or five driver mutations located in both coding and noncoding regions. They also found, however, that in approximately 5% of cases no driver mutations could be identified.
A substantial proportion of tumors displayed “hallmarks of genomic catastrophes.” About 22% of tumors exhibited chromothripsis, a mutational process marked by hundreds or even thousands of clustered chromosomal rearrangements. About 18% showed chromoplexy, which is characterized by scattering and rearrangement of multiple strands of DNA from one or more chromosomes.
Analyzing driver point mutations and structural variants in noncoding regions, the investigators found the usual suspects – previously reported culprits – as well as novel candidates.
For example, they identified point mutations in the five prime region of the tumor suppressor gene TP53 and the three prime untranslated regions of NFKBIZ (a nuclear factor kappa B inhibitor) and TOB1 (an antiproliferative protein), focal deletion in BRD4 (a transcriptional and epigenetic regulator), and rearrangements in chromosomal loci in members of the AKR1C family of enzymes thought to play a role in disease progression.
In addition, investigators identified mutations in noncoding regions of TERT, a telomerase gene. These mutations result in ramped-up expression of telomerase, which in turn promotes uncontrollable division of tumor cells.
Mutational signatures
In a related line of research, PCAWG investigators identified new DNA mutational signatures ranging from single nucleotide polymorphisms to insertions and deletions, as well as to structural variants – rearrangements of large sections of the genome.
“The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses, enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures, and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated – but distinct – DNA damage, repair, and/or replication mechanisms. By estimating the contribution of each signature to the mutational catalogs of individual cancer genomes, we revealed associations of signatures to exogenous or endogenous exposures, as well as to defective DNA maintenance processes,” the investigators wrote.
They also acknowledged, however, that “many signatures are of unknown cause.”
Cancer evolution
One of the six main studies focused on the evolution of cancer over time. Instead of providing a “snapshot” of the genome as captured by sequencing tissue from a single biopsy, consortium investigators created full-length features of the “life history and evolution of mutational processes and driver mutation sequences.”
They found that early cancer development was marked by relatively few mutations in driver genes and by identifiable copy-number gains, including trisomy 7 in glioblastoma, and an abnormal mirroring of the arms (isochromosome) of chromosome 17 in medulloblastoma.
In 40% of the samples, however, there were significant changes in the mutational spectrum as the cancers grew, leading to a near quadrupling of driver genes and increased genomic instability in later-stage tumors.
“Copy-number alterations often occur in mitotic crises and lead to simultaneous gains of chromosomal segments,” the investigators wrote. “Timing analyses suggest that driver mutations often precede diagnosis by many years, if not decades. Together, these results determine the evolutionary trajectories of cancer and highlight opportunities for early cancer detection.”
Implications for cancer care
“When I used to treat patients with cancer, I was always completely amazed and puzzled by how two patients could have what looked like the same tumor. It would look the same under the microscope, have the same size, and the two patients would receive exactly the same treatment, but the two patients would have completely opposite outcomes; one would survive, and one would die. What this analysis … has done is really laid bare the reasons for that unpredictability in clinical outcomes,” Peter Campbell, MD, PhD, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England, said during the telebriefing.
“The most striking finding out of all of the suite of papers is just how different one person’s cancer genome is from another person’s. We see thousands of different combinations of mutations that can cause the cancer, and more than 80 different underlying processes generating the mutations in a cancer, and that leads to very different shapes and patterns in the genome that result,” he added.
On a positive note, the research shows that one or more driver mutations can be identified in about 95% of all cancer patients, and it elucidates the sequence of events leading to oncogenesis and tumor evolution, providing opportunities for earlier identification and potential interventions to prevent cancer, Dr. Campbell said.
The PCAWG was a collaborative multinational effort with multiple funding sources and many investigators.
SOURCE: Nature. 2020 Feb 5. https://www.nature.com/collections/pcawg/
A massive collaborative project spanning four continents and 744 research centers has revealed driver mutations in both protein-coding and noncoding regions of 38 cancer types.
The Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) is an integrative analysis of the whole-genome sequences from 2,658 donors across 38 common tumor types. The findings are expected to add exponentially to what’s currently known about the complex genetics of cancer, and they point to possible strategies for improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and care.
Six articles summarizing the findings are presented in a series of papers in Nature, and 16 more appear in affiliated publications.
“It’s humbling that it was only 14 years ago that the genomics community sequenced its very first cancer exome, and it was able to identify mutations within the roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes in the human cell,” investigator Lincoln Stein, MD, PhD, of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research in Toronto, said in a telephone briefing.
Exome sequencing, however, covers only protein-coding genomic regions, which constitute only about 1% of the entire genome, “so assembling an accurate portrait of the cancer genome using just the exome data is like trying to put together a 100,000-piece jigsaw puzzle when you’re missing 99% of the pieces and there’s no puzzle box with a completed picture to guide you,” Dr. Stein said.
Members of the PCAWG from centers in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia screened 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and matched samples of noncancerous tissues from the same individuals, along with 1,188 transcriptomes cataloging the sequences and expression of RNA transcripts in a given tumor. The 6-year project netted more than 800 terabytes of genomic data, roughly equivalent to the digital holdings of the U.S. Library of Congress multiplied by 11.
The findings are summarized in papers focusing on cancer drivers, noncoding changes, mutational signatures, structural variants, cancer evolution over time, and RNA alterations.
Driver mutations
Investigators found that the average cancer genome contains four or five driver mutations located in both coding and noncoding regions. They also found, however, that in approximately 5% of cases no driver mutations could be identified.
A substantial proportion of tumors displayed “hallmarks of genomic catastrophes.” About 22% of tumors exhibited chromothripsis, a mutational process marked by hundreds or even thousands of clustered chromosomal rearrangements. About 18% showed chromoplexy, which is characterized by scattering and rearrangement of multiple strands of DNA from one or more chromosomes.
Analyzing driver point mutations and structural variants in noncoding regions, the investigators found the usual suspects – previously reported culprits – as well as novel candidates.
For example, they identified point mutations in the five prime region of the tumor suppressor gene TP53 and the three prime untranslated regions of NFKBIZ (a nuclear factor kappa B inhibitor) and TOB1 (an antiproliferative protein), focal deletion in BRD4 (a transcriptional and epigenetic regulator), and rearrangements in chromosomal loci in members of the AKR1C family of enzymes thought to play a role in disease progression.
In addition, investigators identified mutations in noncoding regions of TERT, a telomerase gene. These mutations result in ramped-up expression of telomerase, which in turn promotes uncontrollable division of tumor cells.
Mutational signatures
In a related line of research, PCAWG investigators identified new DNA mutational signatures ranging from single nucleotide polymorphisms to insertions and deletions, as well as to structural variants – rearrangements of large sections of the genome.
“The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses, enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures, and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated – but distinct – DNA damage, repair, and/or replication mechanisms. By estimating the contribution of each signature to the mutational catalogs of individual cancer genomes, we revealed associations of signatures to exogenous or endogenous exposures, as well as to defective DNA maintenance processes,” the investigators wrote.
They also acknowledged, however, that “many signatures are of unknown cause.”
Cancer evolution
One of the six main studies focused on the evolution of cancer over time. Instead of providing a “snapshot” of the genome as captured by sequencing tissue from a single biopsy, consortium investigators created full-length features of the “life history and evolution of mutational processes and driver mutation sequences.”
They found that early cancer development was marked by relatively few mutations in driver genes and by identifiable copy-number gains, including trisomy 7 in glioblastoma, and an abnormal mirroring of the arms (isochromosome) of chromosome 17 in medulloblastoma.
In 40% of the samples, however, there were significant changes in the mutational spectrum as the cancers grew, leading to a near quadrupling of driver genes and increased genomic instability in later-stage tumors.
“Copy-number alterations often occur in mitotic crises and lead to simultaneous gains of chromosomal segments,” the investigators wrote. “Timing analyses suggest that driver mutations often precede diagnosis by many years, if not decades. Together, these results determine the evolutionary trajectories of cancer and highlight opportunities for early cancer detection.”
Implications for cancer care
“When I used to treat patients with cancer, I was always completely amazed and puzzled by how two patients could have what looked like the same tumor. It would look the same under the microscope, have the same size, and the two patients would receive exactly the same treatment, but the two patients would have completely opposite outcomes; one would survive, and one would die. What this analysis … has done is really laid bare the reasons for that unpredictability in clinical outcomes,” Peter Campbell, MD, PhD, of the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England, said during the telebriefing.
“The most striking finding out of all of the suite of papers is just how different one person’s cancer genome is from another person’s. We see thousands of different combinations of mutations that can cause the cancer, and more than 80 different underlying processes generating the mutations in a cancer, and that leads to very different shapes and patterns in the genome that result,” he added.
On a positive note, the research shows that one or more driver mutations can be identified in about 95% of all cancer patients, and it elucidates the sequence of events leading to oncogenesis and tumor evolution, providing opportunities for earlier identification and potential interventions to prevent cancer, Dr. Campbell said.
The PCAWG was a collaborative multinational effort with multiple funding sources and many investigators.
SOURCE: Nature. 2020 Feb 5. https://www.nature.com/collections/pcawg/
FROM NATURE
FDA issues public health warning recommending against cesium salt usage
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a public health alert warning consumers to avoid the use of dietary supplements that contain cesium chloride or any other cesium salt because of significant safety risks.
Cesium salts are sometimes advertised as an alternative treatment for cancer, the FDA said in the announcement, but these salts have never proved to be safe or effective at treating cancer or any other disease. Clinical case reports and nonclinical trials have shown that cesium salts are associated with a variety of adverse events, including cardiac arrhythmias, hypokalemia, seizures, syncope, and death.
The FDA warned health care providers that cesium salts presented a significant safety risk in compounding drugs in July 2018.
Health care providers should not recommend dietary supplements containing cesium salts to their patients, the FDA said, and if a patient experiences an adverse event while taking a supplement containing cesium salt, the event should be reported to the agency.
While there are few dietary supplements on the market that contain cesium salt, consumers should be aware of the risks and avoid these products. The FDA noted that “if claims sound too good to be true, they probably are.”
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a public health alert warning consumers to avoid the use of dietary supplements that contain cesium chloride or any other cesium salt because of significant safety risks.
Cesium salts are sometimes advertised as an alternative treatment for cancer, the FDA said in the announcement, but these salts have never proved to be safe or effective at treating cancer or any other disease. Clinical case reports and nonclinical trials have shown that cesium salts are associated with a variety of adverse events, including cardiac arrhythmias, hypokalemia, seizures, syncope, and death.
The FDA warned health care providers that cesium salts presented a significant safety risk in compounding drugs in July 2018.
Health care providers should not recommend dietary supplements containing cesium salts to their patients, the FDA said, and if a patient experiences an adverse event while taking a supplement containing cesium salt, the event should be reported to the agency.
While there are few dietary supplements on the market that contain cesium salt, consumers should be aware of the risks and avoid these products. The FDA noted that “if claims sound too good to be true, they probably are.”
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a public health alert warning consumers to avoid the use of dietary supplements that contain cesium chloride or any other cesium salt because of significant safety risks.
Cesium salts are sometimes advertised as an alternative treatment for cancer, the FDA said in the announcement, but these salts have never proved to be safe or effective at treating cancer or any other disease. Clinical case reports and nonclinical trials have shown that cesium salts are associated with a variety of adverse events, including cardiac arrhythmias, hypokalemia, seizures, syncope, and death.
The FDA warned health care providers that cesium salts presented a significant safety risk in compounding drugs in July 2018.
Health care providers should not recommend dietary supplements containing cesium salts to their patients, the FDA said, and if a patient experiences an adverse event while taking a supplement containing cesium salt, the event should be reported to the agency.
While there are few dietary supplements on the market that contain cesium salt, consumers should be aware of the risks and avoid these products. The FDA noted that “if claims sound too good to be true, they probably are.”