More than 170 physician groups are calling on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to withdraw a provision in the proposed 2019 physician fee schedule that would flatten evaluation and management payments.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The controversial proposal would set the payment rate for a level 1 evaluation and management (E/M) office visit for a new patient at $44, down from the $45 using the current methodology. Payment for levels 2-5 would be $135. Currently, payments for level 2 new patient visits are set at $76, level 3 at $110, level 4 at $167, and level 5 at $211.

For E/M office visits with established patients, the proposed rate would be $24 for level 1, up from the current payment of $22. Payment for levels 2-5 would be $93. Under the current methodology, payments for established patient level 2 visits are set at $45, level 3 at $74, level 4 at $109, and level 5 at $148.

In an Aug. 28 letter to the CMS, led by the American College of Rheumatology, physician groups applauded CMS recognition of the problems with the current E/M documentation guidelines and codes, but urged them to reconsider plans to “cut and consolidate evaluation and management services.” Doing so would “severely reduce Medicare patients’ access to care by cutting payments for complex office visits, adversely effecting the care and treatment of patients with complex conditions, and potentially exacerbate physician workforce shortages.”

A separate letter, led by the American Medical Association, made similar assertions that the current proposal has the potential to “hurt physicians and other health care professionals in specialties that treat the sickest patients, as well as those who provide comprehensive primary care, ultimately jeopardizing patients’ access to care.”

Daniel P. McQuillen, MD, of Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass. and member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said that IDSA is “worried that the implementation is being pushed ahead too fast without really considering whether it’s the right way of doing it and whether there might be some alternative ways of doing it that make more sense.”

Another concern related to the implementation of this proposal is the financial impact on physicians.

Implementation of the CMS proposal, as currently written, “would be amazingly expensive for private practice [doctors] and really for anyone else because we would have to change our EMRs,” Barbara Levy, MD, cochair of the CPT/RUC Work Group at the AMA.

“We would have to reprogram our billing software. All of that comes with a significant cost,” said Dr. Levy, who also serves as vice president of health policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Part of the selling point of the CMS proposal is the reduction in documentation that accompanies the E/M payment changes. The goal, according to the CMS, is to reduce time spent on paperwork and free up physicians to devote more time to patient care. But some physicians are skeptical it would work out that way.

“I don’t think it is going to change my documentation burden very much,” Jeffery Ward, MD, chair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Government Relations Committee, said in an interview. “Their assumption is that I write my notes in order to meet a billing requirement and if I don’t have that billing requirement, I won’t have to write nearly as detailed notes. My notes are written so that if someone else needs to take care of my patient when I am not there, they can step in, read my notes, know what’s going on, and follow the patient.”

Dr. Ward suggested that the real purpose of the proposal is to shift more money to primary care, and raised the concern that the CMS is using this proposal “as a vehicle to take money away from specialists who take care of very complicated patients in order to give it to other people, particularly to primary care.”

ASCO and the Community Oncology Alliance both anticipate a 7%-8% reduction in payments to cancer specialists if this provision takes effect, Dr. Ward said.

Another element of the proposal that is raising concerns among physician groups is a proposed payment reduction when a visit involves more than one service. For example, when a single office visit includes both an E/M code and a procedure code, the proposal calls for the E/M code to be cut in half.

“From the patients’ perspective, the potential threat is that doctors could be incentivized to spend less time with patients or potentially bring patients back for subsequent visits to handle multiple problems,” Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Government Affairs, said in an interview.

Comments on the proposed update to the 2019 Medicare physician fee schedule are due Sept. 10.

[email protected]

More than 170 physician groups are calling on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to withdraw a provision in the proposed 2019 physician fee schedule that would flatten evaluation and management payments.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The controversial proposal would set the payment rate for a level 1 evaluation and management (E/M) office visit for a new patient at $44, down from the $45 using the current methodology. Payment for levels 2-5 would be $135. Currently, payments for level 2 new patient visits are set at $76, level 3 at $110, level 4 at $167, and level 5 at $211.

For E/M office visits with established patients, the proposed rate would be $24 for level 1, up from the current payment of $22. Payment for levels 2-5 would be $93. Under the current methodology, payments for established patient level 2 visits are set at $45, level 3 at $74, level 4 at $109, and level 5 at $148.

In an Aug. 28 letter to the CMS, led by the American College of Rheumatology, physician groups applauded CMS recognition of the problems with the current E/M documentation guidelines and codes, but urged them to reconsider plans to “cut and consolidate evaluation and management services.” Doing so would “severely reduce Medicare patients’ access to care by cutting payments for complex office visits, adversely effecting the care and treatment of patients with complex conditions, and potentially exacerbate physician workforce shortages.”

A separate letter, led by the American Medical Association, made similar assertions that the current proposal has the potential to “hurt physicians and other health care professionals in specialties that treat the sickest patients, as well as those who provide comprehensive primary care, ultimately jeopardizing patients’ access to care.”

Daniel P. McQuillen, MD, of Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass. and member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said that IDSA is “worried that the implementation is being pushed ahead too fast without really considering whether it’s the right way of doing it and whether there might be some alternative ways of doing it that make more sense.”

Another concern related to the implementation of this proposal is the financial impact on physicians.

Implementation of the CMS proposal, as currently written, “would be amazingly expensive for private practice [doctors] and really for anyone else because we would have to change our EMRs,” Barbara Levy, MD, cochair of the CPT/RUC Work Group at the AMA.

“We would have to reprogram our billing software. All of that comes with a significant cost,” said Dr. Levy, who also serves as vice president of health policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Part of the selling point of the CMS proposal is the reduction in documentation that accompanies the E/M payment changes. The goal, according to the CMS, is to reduce time spent on paperwork and free up physicians to devote more time to patient care. But some physicians are skeptical it would work out that way.

“I don’t think it is going to change my documentation burden very much,” Jeffery Ward, MD, chair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Government Relations Committee, said in an interview. “Their assumption is that I write my notes in order to meet a billing requirement and if I don’t have that billing requirement, I won’t have to write nearly as detailed notes. My notes are written so that if someone else needs to take care of my patient when I am not there, they can step in, read my notes, know what’s going on, and follow the patient.”

Dr. Ward suggested that the real purpose of the proposal is to shift more money to primary care, and raised the concern that the CMS is using this proposal “as a vehicle to take money away from specialists who take care of very complicated patients in order to give it to other people, particularly to primary care.”

ASCO and the Community Oncology Alliance both anticipate a 7%-8% reduction in payments to cancer specialists if this provision takes effect, Dr. Ward said.

Another element of the proposal that is raising concerns among physician groups is a proposed payment reduction when a visit involves more than one service. For example, when a single office visit includes both an E/M code and a procedure code, the proposal calls for the E/M code to be cut in half.

“From the patients’ perspective, the potential threat is that doctors could be incentivized to spend less time with patients or potentially bring patients back for subsequent visits to handle multiple problems,” Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Government Affairs, said in an interview.

Comments on the proposed update to the 2019 Medicare physician fee schedule are due Sept. 10.

[email protected]

More than 170 physician groups are calling on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to withdraw a provision in the proposed 2019 physician fee schedule that would flatten evaluation and management payments.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The controversial proposal would set the payment rate for a level 1 evaluation and management (E/M) office visit for a new patient at $44, down from the $45 using the current methodology. Payment for levels 2-5 would be $135. Currently, payments for level 2 new patient visits are set at $76, level 3 at $110, level 4 at $167, and level 5 at $211.

For E/M office visits with established patients, the proposed rate would be $24 for level 1, up from the current payment of $22. Payment for levels 2-5 would be $93. Under the current methodology, payments for established patient level 2 visits are set at $45, level 3 at $74, level 4 at $109, and level 5 at $148.

In an Aug. 28 letter to the CMS, led by the American College of Rheumatology, physician groups applauded CMS recognition of the problems with the current E/M documentation guidelines and codes, but urged them to reconsider plans to “cut and consolidate evaluation and management services.” Doing so would “severely reduce Medicare patients’ access to care by cutting payments for complex office visits, adversely effecting the care and treatment of patients with complex conditions, and potentially exacerbate physician workforce shortages.”

A separate letter, led by the American Medical Association, made similar assertions that the current proposal has the potential to “hurt physicians and other health care professionals in specialties that treat the sickest patients, as well as those who provide comprehensive primary care, ultimately jeopardizing patients’ access to care.”

Daniel P. McQuillen, MD, of Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass. and member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said that IDSA is “worried that the implementation is being pushed ahead too fast without really considering whether it’s the right way of doing it and whether there might be some alternative ways of doing it that make more sense.”

Another concern related to the implementation of this proposal is the financial impact on physicians.

Implementation of the CMS proposal, as currently written, “would be amazingly expensive for private practice [doctors] and really for anyone else because we would have to change our EMRs,” Barbara Levy, MD, cochair of the CPT/RUC Work Group at the AMA.

“We would have to reprogram our billing software. All of that comes with a significant cost,” said Dr. Levy, who also serves as vice president of health policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Part of the selling point of the CMS proposal is the reduction in documentation that accompanies the E/M payment changes. The goal, according to the CMS, is to reduce time spent on paperwork and free up physicians to devote more time to patient care. But some physicians are skeptical it would work out that way.

“I don’t think it is going to change my documentation burden very much,” Jeffery Ward, MD, chair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Government Relations Committee, said in an interview. “Their assumption is that I write my notes in order to meet a billing requirement and if I don’t have that billing requirement, I won’t have to write nearly as detailed notes. My notes are written so that if someone else needs to take care of my patient when I am not there, they can step in, read my notes, know what’s going on, and follow the patient.”

Dr. Ward suggested that the real purpose of the proposal is to shift more money to primary care, and raised the concern that the CMS is using this proposal “as a vehicle to take money away from specialists who take care of very complicated patients in order to give it to other people, particularly to primary care.”

ASCO and the Community Oncology Alliance both anticipate a 7%-8% reduction in payments to cancer specialists if this provision takes effect, Dr. Ward said.

Another element of the proposal that is raising concerns among physician groups is a proposed payment reduction when a visit involves more than one service. For example, when a single office visit includes both an E/M code and a procedure code, the proposal calls for the E/M code to be cut in half.

“From the patients’ perspective, the potential threat is that doctors could be incentivized to spend less time with patients or potentially bring patients back for subsequent visits to handle multiple problems,” Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Government Affairs, said in an interview.

Comments on the proposed update to the 2019 Medicare physician fee schedule are due Sept. 10.

[email protected]

Against the backdrop of a near doubling in the incidence of congenital syphilis in the United States, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has reaffirmed its 2009 recommendation to screen all pregnant women for syphilis as early as possible in pregnancy.

The advice was the task force’s primary recommendation, based on a systematic review of seven studies and backed by the highest grade of evidence, in a statement published in JAMA. Untreated syphilis can be transmitted to the fetus at any time during pregnancy or birth, and congenital syphilis is associated with significant neonatal morbidity – including bone deformities and neurologic impairment – as well as stillbirth and neonatal death.

The prevalence of congenital syphilis was in decline from 2008 to 2012, but then increased by 87% from 2012 to 2016 – from 8.4 cases per 100,000 live births in 2012 to 15.7 cases in 2016. The increase coincided with rising national rates of syphilis among women of reproductive age – from 0.9 cases of primary and secondary syphilis infection per 100,000 women in 2012 to 1.9 cases in 2016.

Additionally, the task force recommended that pregnant women who had not received prenatal care be screened at delivery.

“Although nearly 70% of infants with congenital syphilis are born to mothers who received prenatal care, detection, and treatment of maternal syphilis often occurs too late to treat the fetus and prevent congenital syphilis,” wrote Susan J. Curry, PhD, from the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and her coauthors. “Recent data suggest that while screening rates for syphilis infection are generally high, the proportion of women screened earlier in pregnancy remains low (for example, 20% of women are screened only at the time of delivery).”

The review pointed to an observational study of the impact of the introduction of syphilis screening during pregnancy in China. That study of more than 2 million women showed that screening for syphilis in pregnancy increased from 89.8% of women in 2002 to 97.2% of women in 2012 and was associated with a decrease in the incidence of congenital syphilis from 109.3 cases to 9.4 cases per 100,000 live births.

The group found convincing evidence that screening reduced both the incidence of congenital syphilis and the risk of adverse outcomes related to maternal infection and that the potential harms of screening – such as false positives – were small.

The paper also referenced guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that high-risk women – such as those living in areas or communities with a higher prevalence of syphilis, women with HIV, or with a history of incarceration or sex work – should also be rescreened early in the third trimester and again at delivery. Similarly, women who are exposed to an infected partner also should be rescreened.

Further, the task force recommended screening for nonpregnant adolescents and adults at increased risk of syphilis infection.

In terms of treatment, the CDC currently recommends parenteral penicillin G benzathine as the treatment of choice for syphilis in pregnant women. However, the task force recommended clinicians consult the CDC website for updates.

The authors noted that no studies that met the inclusion criteria examined whether penicillin use during pregnancy was associated with any harm or looked at serious adverse events in women with a history of penicillin allergy.

“Because the review was primarily focused on screening, it did not address the efficacy of alternative antibiotic treatments [e.g., ceftriaxone] in pregnant women [with or without penicillin allergies],” the authors wrote.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Curry S et al. JAMA. 2018;320:911-7.

Against the backdrop of a near doubling in the incidence of congenital syphilis in the United States, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has reaffirmed its 2009 recommendation to screen all pregnant women for syphilis as early as possible in pregnancy.

The advice was the task force’s primary recommendation, based on a systematic review of seven studies and backed by the highest grade of evidence, in a statement published in JAMA. Untreated syphilis can be transmitted to the fetus at any time during pregnancy or birth, and congenital syphilis is associated with significant neonatal morbidity – including bone deformities and neurologic impairment – as well as stillbirth and neonatal death.

The prevalence of congenital syphilis was in decline from 2008 to 2012, but then increased by 87% from 2012 to 2016 – from 8.4 cases per 100,000 live births in 2012 to 15.7 cases in 2016. The increase coincided with rising national rates of syphilis among women of reproductive age – from 0.9 cases of primary and secondary syphilis infection per 100,000 women in 2012 to 1.9 cases in 2016.

Additionally, the task force recommended that pregnant women who had not received prenatal care be screened at delivery.

“Although nearly 70% of infants with congenital syphilis are born to mothers who received prenatal care, detection, and treatment of maternal syphilis often occurs too late to treat the fetus and prevent congenital syphilis,” wrote Susan J. Curry, PhD, from the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and her coauthors. “Recent data suggest that while screening rates for syphilis infection are generally high, the proportion of women screened earlier in pregnancy remains low (for example, 20% of women are screened only at the time of delivery).”

The review pointed to an observational study of the impact of the introduction of syphilis screening during pregnancy in China. That study of more than 2 million women showed that screening for syphilis in pregnancy increased from 89.8% of women in 2002 to 97.2% of women in 2012 and was associated with a decrease in the incidence of congenital syphilis from 109.3 cases to 9.4 cases per 100,000 live births.

The group found convincing evidence that screening reduced both the incidence of congenital syphilis and the risk of adverse outcomes related to maternal infection and that the potential harms of screening – such as false positives – were small.

The paper also referenced guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that high-risk women – such as those living in areas or communities with a higher prevalence of syphilis, women with HIV, or with a history of incarceration or sex work – should also be rescreened early in the third trimester and again at delivery. Similarly, women who are exposed to an infected partner also should be rescreened.

Further, the task force recommended screening for nonpregnant adolescents and adults at increased risk of syphilis infection.

In terms of treatment, the CDC currently recommends parenteral penicillin G benzathine as the treatment of choice for syphilis in pregnant women. However, the task force recommended clinicians consult the CDC website for updates.

The authors noted that no studies that met the inclusion criteria examined whether penicillin use during pregnancy was associated with any harm or looked at serious adverse events in women with a history of penicillin allergy.

“Because the review was primarily focused on screening, it did not address the efficacy of alternative antibiotic treatments [e.g., ceftriaxone] in pregnant women [with or without penicillin allergies],” the authors wrote.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Curry S et al. JAMA. 2018;320:911-7.

Against the backdrop of a near doubling in the incidence of congenital syphilis in the United States, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has reaffirmed its 2009 recommendation to screen all pregnant women for syphilis as early as possible in pregnancy.

The advice was the task force’s primary recommendation, based on a systematic review of seven studies and backed by the highest grade of evidence, in a statement published in JAMA. Untreated syphilis can be transmitted to the fetus at any time during pregnancy or birth, and congenital syphilis is associated with significant neonatal morbidity – including bone deformities and neurologic impairment – as well as stillbirth and neonatal death.

The prevalence of congenital syphilis was in decline from 2008 to 2012, but then increased by 87% from 2012 to 2016 – from 8.4 cases per 100,000 live births in 2012 to 15.7 cases in 2016. The increase coincided with rising national rates of syphilis among women of reproductive age – from 0.9 cases of primary and secondary syphilis infection per 100,000 women in 2012 to 1.9 cases in 2016.

Additionally, the task force recommended that pregnant women who had not received prenatal care be screened at delivery.

“Although nearly 70% of infants with congenital syphilis are born to mothers who received prenatal care, detection, and treatment of maternal syphilis often occurs too late to treat the fetus and prevent congenital syphilis,” wrote Susan J. Curry, PhD, from the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and her coauthors. “Recent data suggest that while screening rates for syphilis infection are generally high, the proportion of women screened earlier in pregnancy remains low (for example, 20% of women are screened only at the time of delivery).”

The review pointed to an observational study of the impact of the introduction of syphilis screening during pregnancy in China. That study of more than 2 million women showed that screening for syphilis in pregnancy increased from 89.8% of women in 2002 to 97.2% of women in 2012 and was associated with a decrease in the incidence of congenital syphilis from 109.3 cases to 9.4 cases per 100,000 live births.

The group found convincing evidence that screening reduced both the incidence of congenital syphilis and the risk of adverse outcomes related to maternal infection and that the potential harms of screening – such as false positives – were small.

The paper also referenced guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that high-risk women – such as those living in areas or communities with a higher prevalence of syphilis, women with HIV, or with a history of incarceration or sex work – should also be rescreened early in the third trimester and again at delivery. Similarly, women who are exposed to an infected partner also should be rescreened.

Further, the task force recommended screening for nonpregnant adolescents and adults at increased risk of syphilis infection.

In terms of treatment, the CDC currently recommends parenteral penicillin G benzathine as the treatment of choice for syphilis in pregnant women. However, the task force recommended clinicians consult the CDC website for updates.

The authors noted that no studies that met the inclusion criteria examined whether penicillin use during pregnancy was associated with any harm or looked at serious adverse events in women with a history of penicillin allergy.

“Because the review was primarily focused on screening, it did not address the efficacy of alternative antibiotic treatments [e.g., ceftriaxone] in pregnant women [with or without penicillin allergies],” the authors wrote.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Curry S et al. JAMA. 2018;320:911-7.

Practicing in the field of obstetrics and gynecology affords us a special privilege: we are part of the most important and unforgettable events in our patients’ lives, both in sickness and in health. Along with the great joys we share comes profound responsibility and the recognition that we are only as effective as the team with whom we work. Although we live in a country that is home to some of the best health care systems in the world, the maternal mortality rates and disease burden among women in underserved communities belie this fact. A University of Washington study demonstrated a more than 20-year gap in life expectancy between wealthy and poor communities in the United States from 1980 to 2014.¹ Not surprisingly, access to medical care was a contributing factor.

Poverty only partly explains this disparity. Racial differences are at play as well. In 1992, a seminal study by Schoendorf and colleagues² demonstrated that the death rates of babies born to educated African American parents were higher due to lower birth weights. Concern recently has been amplified, and many lay publications have publicly raised the alarm.³ Several states have started investigating the causes, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, as well as other organizations, are studying possible solutions.

With nearly 50% of US births financed by Medicaid,⁵ there was great hope that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and expansion of Medicaid would result in improved access and quality of health care for underserved patients; however, it has become apparent that coverage did not confer improved access to quality care, especially for medical specialties.

Urban and rural poor populations generally seek medical services from safety net clinics staffed by midlevel and physician primary care providers whose tight schedules, documentation demands, and low reimbursement rates are coupled with complex medical and socioeconomic patient populations. While these providers may be skilled in basic primary care, their patients often present with conditions outside their scope of practice. Our country’s growing physician shortage, along with patient location and personal logistics, adds to the challenges for patients and providers alike. And who among us is not asked several times a week, even by our well-insured patients, for a primary care or specialist physician recommendation? The barriers for seeking medical care in rural populations are even greater, as local hospitals and clinics are closing at an alarming rate.

Alumni at work

Communities of physicians across the country recognize both the access problem and the potential to create solutions. Organizations such as Project ECHO, launched in 2003 through the University of New Mexico, connect rural providers with university physicians to aid in treatment of hepatitis C and other illnesses.

As the date for implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act approached, a group of medical school alumni leaders recognized that we could come together and offer our services to address growing health care disparities. Galvanized by the challenge, the Medical Alumni Volunteer Expert Network, or MAVEN Project, was, in our parlance, “born.”

While the concept of the MAVEN Project was germinating, we interviewed numerous colleagues for advice and input and were struck by their desire—especially among the newly retired—to continue to give back. Medicine is a calling, not just a job, and for many of us the joy of helping—the exhilaration of that first birth that sold us on our specialty—gives us meaning and purpose. Many physicians who had left full-time clinical medicine missed the collegiality of the “doctors’ lounge.” Throughout our careers, we are part of a cohort: our medical school class, our residency partners, our hospital staff—we all crave community. With 36% of US physicians older than age 55 and 240,000 retired doctors in the country, we realized a motivated, previously untapped workforce could be marshaled to form a community to serve the most vulnerable among us.⁵

At the same time, telemedicine had come into its own. Simple technology could enable us to see each other on smartphones and computers and even perform portions of a physical examination from afar.

We realized we could marry opportunity (the workforce), need (underserved populations across the country), and technology. The Harvard Medical School Center Primary Care supported a feasibility study, and the MAVEN Project began “seeing” patients in 2016.

A model of hope

The MAVEN Project matches physician volunteers with safety net clinics serving patients in need and provides malpractice insurance and a Health Information Portability and Accountability Act–compliant technology platform to facilitate remote communication. Our volunteers mentor and educate primary care providers in the field and offer both immediate and asynchronous advisory consults. Clinic providers can group cases for discussion, ask urgent questions, or receive advice and support for the day-to-day challenges facing clinicians today. Clinics choose educational topics, focusing on tools needed for patient care rather than esoteric mechanisms of disease. Patients receive best-in-class care conveniently and locally, and by making volunteering easy, we build partnerships that augment patient and provider satisfaction, support long-term capacity building, and improve service delivery.

Our volunteer physicians now represent more than 30 medical specialties and 25 medical schools, and we have completed more than 2,000 consultations to date. Our clinics are located in 6 states (California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, South Dakota, and Washington), and thanks to our model, physician state of licensure is not an impediment to volunteering. Several colleagues in our specialty are providing advice in women’s health.

Driving innovative solutions

Elizabeth Kopin, MD, an ObGyn who practiced for 28 years in Worcester, Massachusetts, and volunteers for the MAVEN Project, eloquently described in correspondence with Project coordinators the spirit that embodies the pursuit of medicine and the organization’s mission. As Dr. Kopin stated, “The driving force behind my entering medicine was to help people in an essential and meaningful way. I was especially driven to participate in the care of women. I wanted to gain knowledge and skills to help women with health care throughout their lives.”

Dr. Kopin’s capacity to care for patients in the clinic and hospital was progressively reduced as her multiple sclerosis advanced. As a result, she retired from clinical practice, but her desire to participate and contribute to medicine with the passion with which she entered it remained.

Her father was an internist who started a charitable clinic in Georgia. Like her father, Dr. Kopin began her medical career in academic medicine. Her father felt that his last 15 years in medicine were the most meaningful of his career because of his work with underserved populations. Dr. Kopin is following in his footsteps. For her, “Looking for a telehealth vehicle helping communities in need gives me the opportunity to use my abilities in the best way possible.” Dr. Kopin also stated, “Helping the underserved was something I wanted to devote my time to and The MAVEN Project has given me that possibility.”

We like to think of ourselves as Match. com meets the Peace Corps, with the goal to reach underserved patients in all 50 states in both rural and urban communities. We ask for as little as 4 hours of your time per month, and all you need is a computer or smartphone and a medical license. We welcome volunteers in active or part-time practice, academics, and industry: your years of wisdom are invaluable.

The vast complexities of the US health care system are by no measure easy to address, but standing by and allowing a fractured system to rupture is not an option. Each of us has an expertise and an opportunity to make incremental steps to ensure that those who need health care do not slip through the cracks. Dr. Kopin and I are fortunate to have a skill to help others and, in the MAVEN Project, a robust, dedicated network of individuals who share our vision.

There are many who have and continue to inspire a guiding conscience to serve beyond oneself. George H.W. Bush said it best when explaining why he founded the Points of Light organization nearly 3 decades ago⁶:

I have pursued life itself over many years now and with varying degrees of happiness. Some of my happiness still comes from trying to be in my own small way a true “point of light.” I believe I was right when I said, as President, there can be no definition of a successful life that does not include service to others. So I do that now, and I gain happiness. I do not seek a Pulitzer Prize. I do not want press attention…. I have found happiness. I no longer pursue it, for it is mine.

Please join us on our mission!

How to join

We are actively seeking specialty and primary care physicians to provide advisory consultations, mentorship, and education via telehealth technology. We welcome physician volunteers who:

• are newly retired, semi-retired, in industry, or in clinical practice
• have a minimum of 2 years of clinical practice experience
• have been active in the medical community in the past 3 years
• have an active or volunteer US medical license (any state)
• are able to provide 3 professional references
• are willing to commit a minimum of 4 hours per month for 6 months.

Visit us online to complete our physician volunteer inquiry form (https://www.mavenproject.org/work-with-us/#wwu-volunteer-as-a-physician-lightblue).

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Practicing in the field of obstetrics and gynecology affords us a special privilege: we are part of the most important and unforgettable events in our patients’ lives, both in sickness and in health. Along with the great joys we share comes profound responsibility and the recognition that we are only as effective as the team with whom we work. Although we live in a country that is home to some of the best health care systems in the world, the maternal mortality rates and disease burden among women in underserved communities belie this fact. A University of Washington study demonstrated a more than 20-year gap in life expectancy between wealthy and poor communities in the United States from 1980 to 2014.¹ Not surprisingly, access to medical care was a contributing factor.

Poverty only partly explains this disparity. Racial differences are at play as well. In 1992, a seminal study by Schoendorf and colleagues² demonstrated that the death rates of babies born to educated African American parents were higher due to lower birth weights. Concern recently has been amplified, and many lay publications have publicly raised the alarm.³ Several states have started investigating the causes, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, as well as other organizations, are studying possible solutions.

With nearly 50% of US births financed by Medicaid,⁵ there was great hope that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and expansion of Medicaid would result in improved access and quality of health care for underserved patients; however, it has become apparent that coverage did not confer improved access to quality care, especially for medical specialties.

Urban and rural poor populations generally seek medical services from safety net clinics staffed by midlevel and physician primary care providers whose tight schedules, documentation demands, and low reimbursement rates are coupled with complex medical and socioeconomic patient populations. While these providers may be skilled in basic primary care, their patients often present with conditions outside their scope of practice. Our country’s growing physician shortage, along with patient location and personal logistics, adds to the challenges for patients and providers alike. And who among us is not asked several times a week, even by our well-insured patients, for a primary care or specialist physician recommendation? The barriers for seeking medical care in rural populations are even greater, as local hospitals and clinics are closing at an alarming rate.

Alumni at work

Communities of physicians across the country recognize both the access problem and the potential to create solutions. Organizations such as Project ECHO, launched in 2003 through the University of New Mexico, connect rural providers with university physicians to aid in treatment of hepatitis C and other illnesses.

As the date for implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act approached, a group of medical school alumni leaders recognized that we could come together and offer our services to address growing health care disparities. Galvanized by the challenge, the Medical Alumni Volunteer Expert Network, or MAVEN Project, was, in our parlance, “born.”

While the concept of the MAVEN Project was germinating, we interviewed numerous colleagues for advice and input and were struck by their desire—especially among the newly retired—to continue to give back. Medicine is a calling, not just a job, and for many of us the joy of helping—the exhilaration of that first birth that sold us on our specialty—gives us meaning and purpose. Many physicians who had left full-time clinical medicine missed the collegiality of the “doctors’ lounge.” Throughout our careers, we are part of a cohort: our medical school class, our residency partners, our hospital staff—we all crave community. With 36% of US physicians older than age 55 and 240,000 retired doctors in the country, we realized a motivated, previously untapped workforce could be marshaled to form a community to serve the most vulnerable among us.⁵

At the same time, telemedicine had come into its own. Simple technology could enable us to see each other on smartphones and computers and even perform portions of a physical examination from afar.

We realized we could marry opportunity (the workforce), need (underserved populations across the country), and technology. The Harvard Medical School Center Primary Care supported a feasibility study, and the MAVEN Project began “seeing” patients in 2016.

A model of hope

The MAVEN Project matches physician volunteers with safety net clinics serving patients in need and provides malpractice insurance and a Health Information Portability and Accountability Act–compliant technology platform to facilitate remote communication. Our volunteers mentor and educate primary care providers in the field and offer both immediate and asynchronous advisory consults. Clinic providers can group cases for discussion, ask urgent questions, or receive advice and support for the day-to-day challenges facing clinicians today. Clinics choose educational topics, focusing on tools needed for patient care rather than esoteric mechanisms of disease. Patients receive best-in-class care conveniently and locally, and by making volunteering easy, we build partnerships that augment patient and provider satisfaction, support long-term capacity building, and improve service delivery.

Our volunteer physicians now represent more than 30 medical specialties and 25 medical schools, and we have completed more than 2,000 consultations to date. Our clinics are located in 6 states (California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, South Dakota, and Washington), and thanks to our model, physician state of licensure is not an impediment to volunteering. Several colleagues in our specialty are providing advice in women’s health.

Driving innovative solutions

Elizabeth Kopin, MD, an ObGyn who practiced for 28 years in Worcester, Massachusetts, and volunteers for the MAVEN Project, eloquently described in correspondence with Project coordinators the spirit that embodies the pursuit of medicine and the organization’s mission. As Dr. Kopin stated, “The driving force behind my entering medicine was to help people in an essential and meaningful way. I was especially driven to participate in the care of women. I wanted to gain knowledge and skills to help women with health care throughout their lives.”

Dr. Kopin’s capacity to care for patients in the clinic and hospital was progressively reduced as her multiple sclerosis advanced. As a result, she retired from clinical practice, but her desire to participate and contribute to medicine with the passion with which she entered it remained.

Her father was an internist who started a charitable clinic in Georgia. Like her father, Dr. Kopin began her medical career in academic medicine. Her father felt that his last 15 years in medicine were the most meaningful of his career because of his work with underserved populations. Dr. Kopin is following in his footsteps. For her, “Looking for a telehealth vehicle helping communities in need gives me the opportunity to use my abilities in the best way possible.” Dr. Kopin also stated, “Helping the underserved was something I wanted to devote my time to and The MAVEN Project has given me that possibility.”

We like to think of ourselves as Match. com meets the Peace Corps, with the goal to reach underserved patients in all 50 states in both rural and urban communities. We ask for as little as 4 hours of your time per month, and all you need is a computer or smartphone and a medical license. We welcome volunteers in active or part-time practice, academics, and industry: your years of wisdom are invaluable.

The vast complexities of the US health care system are by no measure easy to address, but standing by and allowing a fractured system to rupture is not an option. Each of us has an expertise and an opportunity to make incremental steps to ensure that those who need health care do not slip through the cracks. Dr. Kopin and I are fortunate to have a skill to help others and, in the MAVEN Project, a robust, dedicated network of individuals who share our vision.

There are many who have and continue to inspire a guiding conscience to serve beyond oneself. George H.W. Bush said it best when explaining why he founded the Points of Light organization nearly 3 decades ago⁶:

I have pursued life itself over many years now and with varying degrees of happiness. Some of my happiness still comes from trying to be in my own small way a true “point of light.” I believe I was right when I said, as President, there can be no definition of a successful life that does not include service to others. So I do that now, and I gain happiness. I do not seek a Pulitzer Prize. I do not want press attention…. I have found happiness. I no longer pursue it, for it is mine.

Please join us on our mission!

How to join

We are actively seeking specialty and primary care physicians to provide advisory consultations, mentorship, and education via telehealth technology. We welcome physician volunteers who:

• are newly retired, semi-retired, in industry, or in clinical practice
• have a minimum of 2 years of clinical practice experience
• have been active in the medical community in the past 3 years
• have an active or volunteer US medical license (any state)
• are able to provide 3 professional references
• are willing to commit a minimum of 4 hours per month for 6 months.

Visit us online to complete our physician volunteer inquiry form (https://www.mavenproject.org/work-with-us/#wwu-volunteer-as-a-physician-lightblue).

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Practicing in the field of obstetrics and gynecology affords us a special privilege: we are part of the most important and unforgettable events in our patients’ lives, both in sickness and in health. Along with the great joys we share comes profound responsibility and the recognition that we are only as effective as the team with whom we work. Although we live in a country that is home to some of the best health care systems in the world, the maternal mortality rates and disease burden among women in underserved communities belie this fact. A University of Washington study demonstrated a more than 20-year gap in life expectancy between wealthy and poor communities in the United States from 1980 to 2014.¹ Not surprisingly, access to medical care was a contributing factor.

Poverty only partly explains this disparity. Racial differences are at play as well. In 1992, a seminal study by Schoendorf and colleagues² demonstrated that the death rates of babies born to educated African American parents were higher due to lower birth weights. Concern recently has been amplified, and many lay publications have publicly raised the alarm.³ Several states have started investigating the causes, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, as well as other organizations, are studying possible solutions.

With nearly 50% of US births financed by Medicaid,⁵ there was great hope that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and expansion of Medicaid would result in improved access and quality of health care for underserved patients; however, it has become apparent that coverage did not confer improved access to quality care, especially for medical specialties.

Urban and rural poor populations generally seek medical services from safety net clinics staffed by midlevel and physician primary care providers whose tight schedules, documentation demands, and low reimbursement rates are coupled with complex medical and socioeconomic patient populations. While these providers may be skilled in basic primary care, their patients often present with conditions outside their scope of practice. Our country’s growing physician shortage, along with patient location and personal logistics, adds to the challenges for patients and providers alike. And who among us is not asked several times a week, even by our well-insured patients, for a primary care or specialist physician recommendation? The barriers for seeking medical care in rural populations are even greater, as local hospitals and clinics are closing at an alarming rate.

Alumni at work

Communities of physicians across the country recognize both the access problem and the potential to create solutions. Organizations such as Project ECHO, launched in 2003 through the University of New Mexico, connect rural providers with university physicians to aid in treatment of hepatitis C and other illnesses.

As the date for implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act approached, a group of medical school alumni leaders recognized that we could come together and offer our services to address growing health care disparities. Galvanized by the challenge, the Medical Alumni Volunteer Expert Network, or MAVEN Project, was, in our parlance, “born.”

While the concept of the MAVEN Project was germinating, we interviewed numerous colleagues for advice and input and were struck by their desire—especially among the newly retired—to continue to give back. Medicine is a calling, not just a job, and for many of us the joy of helping—the exhilaration of that first birth that sold us on our specialty—gives us meaning and purpose. Many physicians who had left full-time clinical medicine missed the collegiality of the “doctors’ lounge.” Throughout our careers, we are part of a cohort: our medical school class, our residency partners, our hospital staff—we all crave community. With 36% of US physicians older than age 55 and 240,000 retired doctors in the country, we realized a motivated, previously untapped workforce could be marshaled to form a community to serve the most vulnerable among us.⁵

At the same time, telemedicine had come into its own. Simple technology could enable us to see each other on smartphones and computers and even perform portions of a physical examination from afar.

We realized we could marry opportunity (the workforce), need (underserved populations across the country), and technology. The Harvard Medical School Center Primary Care supported a feasibility study, and the MAVEN Project began “seeing” patients in 2016.

A model of hope

The MAVEN Project matches physician volunteers with safety net clinics serving patients in need and provides malpractice insurance and a Health Information Portability and Accountability Act–compliant technology platform to facilitate remote communication. Our volunteers mentor and educate primary care providers in the field and offer both immediate and asynchronous advisory consults. Clinic providers can group cases for discussion, ask urgent questions, or receive advice and support for the day-to-day challenges facing clinicians today. Clinics choose educational topics, focusing on tools needed for patient care rather than esoteric mechanisms of disease. Patients receive best-in-class care conveniently and locally, and by making volunteering easy, we build partnerships that augment patient and provider satisfaction, support long-term capacity building, and improve service delivery.

Our volunteer physicians now represent more than 30 medical specialties and 25 medical schools, and we have completed more than 2,000 consultations to date. Our clinics are located in 6 states (California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, South Dakota, and Washington), and thanks to our model, physician state of licensure is not an impediment to volunteering. Several colleagues in our specialty are providing advice in women’s health.

Driving innovative solutions

Elizabeth Kopin, MD, an ObGyn who practiced for 28 years in Worcester, Massachusetts, and volunteers for the MAVEN Project, eloquently described in correspondence with Project coordinators the spirit that embodies the pursuit of medicine and the organization’s mission. As Dr. Kopin stated, “The driving force behind my entering medicine was to help people in an essential and meaningful way. I was especially driven to participate in the care of women. I wanted to gain knowledge and skills to help women with health care throughout their lives.”

Dr. Kopin’s capacity to care for patients in the clinic and hospital was progressively reduced as her multiple sclerosis advanced. As a result, she retired from clinical practice, but her desire to participate and contribute to medicine with the passion with which she entered it remained.

Her father was an internist who started a charitable clinic in Georgia. Like her father, Dr. Kopin began her medical career in academic medicine. Her father felt that his last 15 years in medicine were the most meaningful of his career because of his work with underserved populations. Dr. Kopin is following in his footsteps. For her, “Looking for a telehealth vehicle helping communities in need gives me the opportunity to use my abilities in the best way possible.” Dr. Kopin also stated, “Helping the underserved was something I wanted to devote my time to and The MAVEN Project has given me that possibility.”

We like to think of ourselves as Match. com meets the Peace Corps, with the goal to reach underserved patients in all 50 states in both rural and urban communities. We ask for as little as 4 hours of your time per month, and all you need is a computer or smartphone and a medical license. We welcome volunteers in active or part-time practice, academics, and industry: your years of wisdom are invaluable.

The vast complexities of the US health care system are by no measure easy to address, but standing by and allowing a fractured system to rupture is not an option. Each of us has an expertise and an opportunity to make incremental steps to ensure that those who need health care do not slip through the cracks. Dr. Kopin and I are fortunate to have a skill to help others and, in the MAVEN Project, a robust, dedicated network of individuals who share our vision.

There are many who have and continue to inspire a guiding conscience to serve beyond oneself. George H.W. Bush said it best when explaining why he founded the Points of Light organization nearly 3 decades ago⁶:

I have pursued life itself over many years now and with varying degrees of happiness. Some of my happiness still comes from trying to be in my own small way a true “point of light.” I believe I was right when I said, as President, there can be no definition of a successful life that does not include service to others. So I do that now, and I gain happiness. I do not seek a Pulitzer Prize. I do not want press attention…. I have found happiness. I no longer pursue it, for it is mine.

Please join us on our mission!

How to join

We are actively seeking specialty and primary care physicians to provide advisory consultations, mentorship, and education via telehealth technology. We welcome physician volunteers who:

• are newly retired, semi-retired, in industry, or in clinical practice
• have a minimum of 2 years of clinical practice experience
• have been active in the medical community in the past 3 years
• have an active or volunteer US medical license (any state)
• are able to provide 3 professional references
• are willing to commit a minimum of 4 hours per month for 6 months.

Visit us online to complete our physician volunteer inquiry form (https://www.mavenproject.org/work-with-us/#wwu-volunteer-as-a-physician-lightblue).

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The European Commission has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex), according to the manufacturer.

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, according to a press release published on the Genmab website.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the European Commission (EC) for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is approved by the EC as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who had disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE trial. Results from this study were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P less than.0001), and rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

[email protected]

The European Commission has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex), according to the manufacturer.

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, according to a press release published on the Genmab website.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the European Commission (EC) for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is approved by the EC as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who had disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE trial. Results from this study were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P less than.0001), and rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

[email protected]

The European Commission has approved a new indication for daratumumab (Darzalex), according to the manufacturer.

The drug is now authorized for use in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) to treat adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, according to a press release published on the Genmab website.

Daratumumab was previously approved by the European Commission (EC) for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone to treat adults with MM who have received at least one prior therapy.

In addition, daratumumab is approved by the EC as monotherapy for adults with relapsed and refractory MM whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who had disease progression on their last therapy.

The EC’s latest approval for daratumumab is based on results from the phase 3 ALCYONE trial. Results from this study were presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

ALCYONE enrolled 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were randomized to receive VMP or daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP).

The overall response rates were 91% in the D-VMP arm and 74% in the VMP arm (P less than.0001), and rates of complete response were 43% and 24%, respectively. Rates of minimal residual disease negativity were 22% and 6%, respectively.

[email protected]

Approximately one-third of children seen for head trauma visits in EDs underwent CT scans over a 9-year period in the United States, despite quality improvement initiatives to reduce unnecessary scans, based on a data from a cross-sectional survey published in Pediatrics.

©Thinkstock.com

“Computed tomography (CT) is the reference standard to provide a rapid and definitive diagnosis of intracranial pathology but must be balanced against the risks of radiation-induced malignancy,” wrote Brett Burstein, MD, PhD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Cambridge, Mass., and his colleagues.

The researchers reviewed data from National Hospital Ambulatory Care Medical Survey database of nationally representative ED visits by children younger than 18 years for head trauma from 2007 to 2015. The median age of the patients was 6 years; 61% were boys. Approximately 88% were seen in nonteaching or nonpediatric hospitals.

During the 9-year period, 32% of 3,054 children underwent head CT scans; the 3,054 represented an estimated 14.3 million children making pediatric ED visits for head trauma. No significant differences were noted from year to year after the researchers controlled for confounding patient and ED factors.

Overall, use of CT was associated with patient’s age 2 years and older (adjusted odds ratio 1.51), white race (aOR 1.43), highest level of triage (aOR 8.24), and treatment at a nonteaching or nonpediatric hospital (aOR 1.47 and 1.53, respectively).

No significant differences in CT use were observed when the researchers compared the periods before (2007-2009) and after (2010-2015) the introduction of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) rules – a clinical prediction protocol to assess head injuries in children in an ED setting. The unadjusted proportion of children who underwent CTs during the before PECARN and after PECARN periods was 33% and 31%, respectively.

“The finding of no decrease in CT neuroimaging during the 9-year study period, and particularly after the publication of the PECARN rules in 2009, was counter to the a priori hypothesis of this study,” Dr. Burstein and his associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on the severity of the head injuries, data on repeat visits, and potential misclassification of hospitals, they said. However, the results highlight the need for targeted interventions to disseminate the latest clinical decisions into practice.

Dr. Burstein and his associates had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Burstein B al. Pediatrics. 2018 Sept 4. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-0814.

Approximately one-third of children seen for head trauma visits in EDs underwent CT scans over a 9-year period in the United States, despite quality improvement initiatives to reduce unnecessary scans, based on a data from a cross-sectional survey published in Pediatrics.

©Thinkstock.com

“Computed tomography (CT) is the reference standard to provide a rapid and definitive diagnosis of intracranial pathology but must be balanced against the risks of radiation-induced malignancy,” wrote Brett Burstein, MD, PhD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Cambridge, Mass., and his colleagues.

The researchers reviewed data from National Hospital Ambulatory Care Medical Survey database of nationally representative ED visits by children younger than 18 years for head trauma from 2007 to 2015. The median age of the patients was 6 years; 61% were boys. Approximately 88% were seen in nonteaching or nonpediatric hospitals.

During the 9-year period, 32% of 3,054 children underwent head CT scans; the 3,054 represented an estimated 14.3 million children making pediatric ED visits for head trauma. No significant differences were noted from year to year after the researchers controlled for confounding patient and ED factors.

Overall, use of CT was associated with patient’s age 2 years and older (adjusted odds ratio 1.51), white race (aOR 1.43), highest level of triage (aOR 8.24), and treatment at a nonteaching or nonpediatric hospital (aOR 1.47 and 1.53, respectively).

No significant differences in CT use were observed when the researchers compared the periods before (2007-2009) and after (2010-2015) the introduction of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) rules – a clinical prediction protocol to assess head injuries in children in an ED setting. The unadjusted proportion of children who underwent CTs during the before PECARN and after PECARN periods was 33% and 31%, respectively.

“The finding of no decrease in CT neuroimaging during the 9-year study period, and particularly after the publication of the PECARN rules in 2009, was counter to the a priori hypothesis of this study,” Dr. Burstein and his associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on the severity of the head injuries, data on repeat visits, and potential misclassification of hospitals, they said. However, the results highlight the need for targeted interventions to disseminate the latest clinical decisions into practice.

Dr. Burstein and his associates had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Burstein B al. Pediatrics. 2018 Sept 4. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-0814.

Approximately one-third of children seen for head trauma visits in EDs underwent CT scans over a 9-year period in the United States, despite quality improvement initiatives to reduce unnecessary scans, based on a data from a cross-sectional survey published in Pediatrics.

©Thinkstock.com

“Computed tomography (CT) is the reference standard to provide a rapid and definitive diagnosis of intracranial pathology but must be balanced against the risks of radiation-induced malignancy,” wrote Brett Burstein, MD, PhD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Cambridge, Mass., and his colleagues.

The researchers reviewed data from National Hospital Ambulatory Care Medical Survey database of nationally representative ED visits by children younger than 18 years for head trauma from 2007 to 2015. The median age of the patients was 6 years; 61% were boys. Approximately 88% were seen in nonteaching or nonpediatric hospitals.

During the 9-year period, 32% of 3,054 children underwent head CT scans; the 3,054 represented an estimated 14.3 million children making pediatric ED visits for head trauma. No significant differences were noted from year to year after the researchers controlled for confounding patient and ED factors.

Overall, use of CT was associated with patient’s age 2 years and older (adjusted odds ratio 1.51), white race (aOR 1.43), highest level of triage (aOR 8.24), and treatment at a nonteaching or nonpediatric hospital (aOR 1.47 and 1.53, respectively).

No significant differences in CT use were observed when the researchers compared the periods before (2007-2009) and after (2010-2015) the introduction of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) rules – a clinical prediction protocol to assess head injuries in children in an ED setting. The unadjusted proportion of children who underwent CTs during the before PECARN and after PECARN periods was 33% and 31%, respectively.

“The finding of no decrease in CT neuroimaging during the 9-year study period, and particularly after the publication of the PECARN rules in 2009, was counter to the a priori hypothesis of this study,” Dr. Burstein and his associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on the severity of the head injuries, data on repeat visits, and potential misclassification of hospitals, they said. However, the results highlight the need for targeted interventions to disseminate the latest clinical decisions into practice.

Dr. Burstein and his associates had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Burstein B al. Pediatrics. 2018 Sept 4. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-0814.

Expression of programmed death-1 (PD1) mRNA may predict outcomes after anti-PD1 therapy across cancer types, according to investigators.

High levels of PD1 mRNA were significantly associated with response to anti-PD1 monotherapy, investigators found in an analysis of tumor samples from 117 patients with advanced cancers who had received either nivolumab or pembrolizumab.

Further validation of PD1 mRNA is warranted to help select patients who might benefit from an anti-PD1 treatment strategy, wrote investigator Aleix Prat, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, and his coinvestigators.

“Identification of reproducible biomarkers that can be applied to predict benefit of anti-PD1 monotherapy might be of clinical value,” Dr. Prat and his coinvestigators note. The report is in Annals of Oncology.

Previous studies support use of PDL1 expression by immunohistochemistry as a biomarker for pembrolizumab in non–small-cell lung cancer; however, that biomarker has some technical limitations, and has not been predictive in other cancer types and with other anti-PD1 drugs including nivolumab, Dr. Prat and his coinvestigators said.

The 117 tumor samples evaluated for PD1 mRNA expression comprised 59 advanced melanomas, 32 non–small-cell lung cancers, 14 renal cell cancers, and 12 other tumors, according to the report. Sixty-two of the patients had been treated with pembrolizumab, and 55 received nivolumab.

About one-quarter of the samples (28.2%) were classified as “PD1-high” with a preestablished cutoff value developed by Dr. Prat and his coinvestigators.

The overall response rate was 51.5% for the patients who had PD1-high tumors, versus 23.8% for the remaining tumors (P less than .001). Those non-PD1-high tumors, when grouped as PD1-intermediate and PD1-low, had overall response rates of 26.6% and 15.0%, respectively.

Median progression-free survival was 8.17 months for PD1-high tumors and 3.18 months for the rest of the tumors (P = .011), the report shows. Similarly, overall survival was a median of 23.4 months for PD1-high tumors and 14.9 months for the rest (P = .330).

Dr. Prat and his colleagues detailed earlier investigations validating PD1 mRNA as a biomarker, including an analysis of PD1 and immune-related gene expression in 10,078 samples from 34 cancer types in The Cancer Genome Atlas.

In that analysis, PD1 was strongly correlated with a group of 30 genes that were “significantly enriched” in biological processes including CD8-T-cell activation, the investigators said.

Moreover, high levels of PD1 mRNA expression were strongly correlated with overall response rates reported in the literature for anti-PD1 monotherapy, they added.

They also reported results of an analysis they used to develop the PD1-high cutoff value. That analysis was based on PD1 mRNA expression in 773 tumor samples across 17 tumor types.

“Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that identification of a preexisting and stable adaptive immune response using PD1 mRNA expression predicts outcome across cancer-types following anti-PD1 monotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

The work was partially sponsored by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Society of Medical Oncology, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Foundation, Pas a Pas, Save the Mama, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Prat disclosed an advisory role with Nanostring Technologies.

SOURCE: Paré L et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 27. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy335.

Expression of programmed death-1 (PD1) mRNA may predict outcomes after anti-PD1 therapy across cancer types, according to investigators.

High levels of PD1 mRNA were significantly associated with response to anti-PD1 monotherapy, investigators found in an analysis of tumor samples from 117 patients with advanced cancers who had received either nivolumab or pembrolizumab.

Further validation of PD1 mRNA is warranted to help select patients who might benefit from an anti-PD1 treatment strategy, wrote investigator Aleix Prat, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, and his coinvestigators.

“Identification of reproducible biomarkers that can be applied to predict benefit of anti-PD1 monotherapy might be of clinical value,” Dr. Prat and his coinvestigators note. The report is in Annals of Oncology.

Previous studies support use of PDL1 expression by immunohistochemistry as a biomarker for pembrolizumab in non–small-cell lung cancer; however, that biomarker has some technical limitations, and has not been predictive in other cancer types and with other anti-PD1 drugs including nivolumab, Dr. Prat and his coinvestigators said.

The 117 tumor samples evaluated for PD1 mRNA expression comprised 59 advanced melanomas, 32 non–small-cell lung cancers, 14 renal cell cancers, and 12 other tumors, according to the report. Sixty-two of the patients had been treated with pembrolizumab, and 55 received nivolumab.

About one-quarter of the samples (28.2%) were classified as “PD1-high” with a preestablished cutoff value developed by Dr. Prat and his coinvestigators.

The overall response rate was 51.5% for the patients who had PD1-high tumors, versus 23.8% for the remaining tumors (P less than .001). Those non-PD1-high tumors, when grouped as PD1-intermediate and PD1-low, had overall response rates of 26.6% and 15.0%, respectively.

Median progression-free survival was 8.17 months for PD1-high tumors and 3.18 months for the rest of the tumors (P = .011), the report shows. Similarly, overall survival was a median of 23.4 months for PD1-high tumors and 14.9 months for the rest (P = .330).

Dr. Prat and his colleagues detailed earlier investigations validating PD1 mRNA as a biomarker, including an analysis of PD1 and immune-related gene expression in 10,078 samples from 34 cancer types in The Cancer Genome Atlas.

In that analysis, PD1 was strongly correlated with a group of 30 genes that were “significantly enriched” in biological processes including CD8-T-cell activation, the investigators said.

Moreover, high levels of PD1 mRNA expression were strongly correlated with overall response rates reported in the literature for anti-PD1 monotherapy, they added.

They also reported results of an analysis they used to develop the PD1-high cutoff value. That analysis was based on PD1 mRNA expression in 773 tumor samples across 17 tumor types.

“Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that identification of a preexisting and stable adaptive immune response using PD1 mRNA expression predicts outcome across cancer-types following anti-PD1 monotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

The work was partially sponsored by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Society of Medical Oncology, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Foundation, Pas a Pas, Save the Mama, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Prat disclosed an advisory role with Nanostring Technologies.

SOURCE: Paré L et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 27. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy335.

Expression of programmed death-1 (PD1) mRNA may predict outcomes after anti-PD1 therapy across cancer types, according to investigators.

High levels of PD1 mRNA were significantly associated with response to anti-PD1 monotherapy, investigators found in an analysis of tumor samples from 117 patients with advanced cancers who had received either nivolumab or pembrolizumab.

Further validation of PD1 mRNA is warranted to help select patients who might benefit from an anti-PD1 treatment strategy, wrote investigator Aleix Prat, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, and his coinvestigators.

“Identification of reproducible biomarkers that can be applied to predict benefit of anti-PD1 monotherapy might be of clinical value,” Dr. Prat and his coinvestigators note. The report is in Annals of Oncology.

Previous studies support use of PDL1 expression by immunohistochemistry as a biomarker for pembrolizumab in non–small-cell lung cancer; however, that biomarker has some technical limitations, and has not been predictive in other cancer types and with other anti-PD1 drugs including nivolumab, Dr. Prat and his coinvestigators said.

The 117 tumor samples evaluated for PD1 mRNA expression comprised 59 advanced melanomas, 32 non–small-cell lung cancers, 14 renal cell cancers, and 12 other tumors, according to the report. Sixty-two of the patients had been treated with pembrolizumab, and 55 received nivolumab.

About one-quarter of the samples (28.2%) were classified as “PD1-high” with a preestablished cutoff value developed by Dr. Prat and his coinvestigators.

The overall response rate was 51.5% for the patients who had PD1-high tumors, versus 23.8% for the remaining tumors (P less than .001). Those non-PD1-high tumors, when grouped as PD1-intermediate and PD1-low, had overall response rates of 26.6% and 15.0%, respectively.

Median progression-free survival was 8.17 months for PD1-high tumors and 3.18 months for the rest of the tumors (P = .011), the report shows. Similarly, overall survival was a median of 23.4 months for PD1-high tumors and 14.9 months for the rest (P = .330).

Dr. Prat and his colleagues detailed earlier investigations validating PD1 mRNA as a biomarker, including an analysis of PD1 and immune-related gene expression in 10,078 samples from 34 cancer types in The Cancer Genome Atlas.

In that analysis, PD1 was strongly correlated with a group of 30 genes that were “significantly enriched” in biological processes including CD8-T-cell activation, the investigators said.

Moreover, high levels of PD1 mRNA expression were strongly correlated with overall response rates reported in the literature for anti-PD1 monotherapy, they added.

They also reported results of an analysis they used to develop the PD1-high cutoff value. That analysis was based on PD1 mRNA expression in 773 tumor samples across 17 tumor types.

“Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that identification of a preexisting and stable adaptive immune response using PD1 mRNA expression predicts outcome across cancer-types following anti-PD1 monotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

The work was partially sponsored by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Society of Medical Oncology, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Foundation, Pas a Pas, Save the Mama, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Prat disclosed an advisory role with Nanostring Technologies.

SOURCE: Paré L et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 27. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy335.

Physician groups are expressing concerns regarding a new policy that will allow indication-based formulary design in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the new policy in an Aug. 29 memo to Part D plan sponsors.

According to a fact sheet issued by CMS on the same day, indication-based formulary design “is a formulary management tool that allows health plans to tailor on-formulary coverage of drugs predicated on specific indications.”

Current Part D policy requires plan sponsors to cover all Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for each drug that is on a plan formulary. Sponsors can begin to implement the new indication-based formulary design policy for plans issued in 2020.

The memo notes that if a Part D plan sponsor chooses to opt into this policy, “it must ensure that there is another therapeutically similar drug on formulary for the nonformulary indication. For example, if a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker is FDA-approved for both Crohn’s disease and plaque psoriasis, but the Part D plan will include it on formulary for plaque psoriasis only, the plan must ensure that there is another TNF blocker on formulary that will be covered for Crohn’s disease.”

Beneficiaries can use the exceptions process to get coverage for a drug that has an indication not on the formulary.

“By allowing Medicare’s prescription drug plans to cover the best drug for each patient condition, plans will have more negotiating power with drug companies, which will result in lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement.

However, physician groups see this more as something that could create access issues for patients.

The “proposed changes will exacerbate many of the access issues patients currently face with plan usage of existing utilization management practices, such as step therapy,” the American College of Rheumatology said in a statement. “Unlike step therapy, which often delays effective treatments, this proposal would go even further and allow plans to remove therapies from the formulary altogether, leaving patients completely unable to access treatments that doctors and patients choose together. ... We also have concerns on what this would mean for work being done on compendia inclusion to secure off-label drug coverage if plans don’t have to cover all approved FDA-approved indications.”

The ACR called on CMS to clarify the exception process to make sure patients have access to their needed drugs.

The American Medical Association agreed.

“Under the plan, Medicare patients will face increased challenges as they navigate health plans to make sure that their needed drug is on their selected formulary, which can change based on what health conditions they have,” AMA President Barbara McAneny, MD, said in a statement. “While the CMS notice included a statement that plans had to include information addressing indication-based formularies in materials provided to prospective enrollees, that is not much help to patients who are not sophisticated in how formularies work.”

Dr. McAneny added that it will be even more difficult for physicians who are working with patients to get them on the best medicines covered by the patient’s formulary.

“Physicians already lack ready access to accurate formulary information – preferred/tier status, on/off formulary, PA [prior authorization] and step therapy requirements – at the point of care in their EHRs,” she said. “These transparency problems will expand by an order of magnitude by the complications this change introduces.”

She also noted that it could be difficult for patients who have multiple chronic conditions to find a drug plan that covers the range of their medications, although CMS said the move is expected to increase the number of drugs available on a given plan’s formulary.

[email protected]

Physician groups are expressing concerns regarding a new policy that will allow indication-based formulary design in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the new policy in an Aug. 29 memo to Part D plan sponsors.

According to a fact sheet issued by CMS on the same day, indication-based formulary design “is a formulary management tool that allows health plans to tailor on-formulary coverage of drugs predicated on specific indications.”

Current Part D policy requires plan sponsors to cover all Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for each drug that is on a plan formulary. Sponsors can begin to implement the new indication-based formulary design policy for plans issued in 2020.

The memo notes that if a Part D plan sponsor chooses to opt into this policy, “it must ensure that there is another therapeutically similar drug on formulary for the nonformulary indication. For example, if a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker is FDA-approved for both Crohn’s disease and plaque psoriasis, but the Part D plan will include it on formulary for plaque psoriasis only, the plan must ensure that there is another TNF blocker on formulary that will be covered for Crohn’s disease.”

Beneficiaries can use the exceptions process to get coverage for a drug that has an indication not on the formulary.

“By allowing Medicare’s prescription drug plans to cover the best drug for each patient condition, plans will have more negotiating power with drug companies, which will result in lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement.

However, physician groups see this more as something that could create access issues for patients.

The “proposed changes will exacerbate many of the access issues patients currently face with plan usage of existing utilization management practices, such as step therapy,” the American College of Rheumatology said in a statement. “Unlike step therapy, which often delays effective treatments, this proposal would go even further and allow plans to remove therapies from the formulary altogether, leaving patients completely unable to access treatments that doctors and patients choose together. ... We also have concerns on what this would mean for work being done on compendia inclusion to secure off-label drug coverage if plans don’t have to cover all approved FDA-approved indications.”

The ACR called on CMS to clarify the exception process to make sure patients have access to their needed drugs.

The American Medical Association agreed.

“Under the plan, Medicare patients will face increased challenges as they navigate health plans to make sure that their needed drug is on their selected formulary, which can change based on what health conditions they have,” AMA President Barbara McAneny, MD, said in a statement. “While the CMS notice included a statement that plans had to include information addressing indication-based formularies in materials provided to prospective enrollees, that is not much help to patients who are not sophisticated in how formularies work.”

Dr. McAneny added that it will be even more difficult for physicians who are working with patients to get them on the best medicines covered by the patient’s formulary.

“Physicians already lack ready access to accurate formulary information – preferred/tier status, on/off formulary, PA [prior authorization] and step therapy requirements – at the point of care in their EHRs,” she said. “These transparency problems will expand by an order of magnitude by the complications this change introduces.”

She also noted that it could be difficult for patients who have multiple chronic conditions to find a drug plan that covers the range of their medications, although CMS said the move is expected to increase the number of drugs available on a given plan’s formulary.

[email protected]

Physician groups are expressing concerns regarding a new policy that will allow indication-based formulary design in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the new policy in an Aug. 29 memo to Part D plan sponsors.

According to a fact sheet issued by CMS on the same day, indication-based formulary design “is a formulary management tool that allows health plans to tailor on-formulary coverage of drugs predicated on specific indications.”

Current Part D policy requires plan sponsors to cover all Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for each drug that is on a plan formulary. Sponsors can begin to implement the new indication-based formulary design policy for plans issued in 2020.

The memo notes that if a Part D plan sponsor chooses to opt into this policy, “it must ensure that there is another therapeutically similar drug on formulary for the nonformulary indication. For example, if a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker is FDA-approved for both Crohn’s disease and plaque psoriasis, but the Part D plan will include it on formulary for plaque psoriasis only, the plan must ensure that there is another TNF blocker on formulary that will be covered for Crohn’s disease.”

Beneficiaries can use the exceptions process to get coverage for a drug that has an indication not on the formulary.

“By allowing Medicare’s prescription drug plans to cover the best drug for each patient condition, plans will have more negotiating power with drug companies, which will result in lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement.

However, physician groups see this more as something that could create access issues for patients.

The “proposed changes will exacerbate many of the access issues patients currently face with plan usage of existing utilization management practices, such as step therapy,” the American College of Rheumatology said in a statement. “Unlike step therapy, which often delays effective treatments, this proposal would go even further and allow plans to remove therapies from the formulary altogether, leaving patients completely unable to access treatments that doctors and patients choose together. ... We also have concerns on what this would mean for work being done on compendia inclusion to secure off-label drug coverage if plans don’t have to cover all approved FDA-approved indications.”

The ACR called on CMS to clarify the exception process to make sure patients have access to their needed drugs.

The American Medical Association agreed.

“Under the plan, Medicare patients will face increased challenges as they navigate health plans to make sure that their needed drug is on their selected formulary, which can change based on what health conditions they have,” AMA President Barbara McAneny, MD, said in a statement. “While the CMS notice included a statement that plans had to include information addressing indication-based formularies in materials provided to prospective enrollees, that is not much help to patients who are not sophisticated in how formularies work.”

Dr. McAneny added that it will be even more difficult for physicians who are working with patients to get them on the best medicines covered by the patient’s formulary.

“Physicians already lack ready access to accurate formulary information – preferred/tier status, on/off formulary, PA [prior authorization] and step therapy requirements – at the point of care in their EHRs,” she said. “These transparency problems will expand by an order of magnitude by the complications this change introduces.”

She also noted that it could be difficult for patients who have multiple chronic conditions to find a drug plan that covers the range of their medications, although CMS said the move is expected to increase the number of drugs available on a given plan’s formulary.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted fast-track designation to CX-01 as a treatment for patients older than 60 years receiving induction therapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

CX-01 also has orphan drug designation from the FDA.

CX-01 is a polysaccharide derived from heparin thought to enhance chemotherapy by disrupting leukemia cell adhesion in bone marrow. Cantex Pharmaceuticals is conducting a randomized, phase 2b study to determine whether CX-01 can improve the efficacy of frontline chemotherapy in patients with AML.

This study builds upon results of a pilot study, which were published in Blood Advances (Blood Adv. 2018 Feb 27;2[4]:381-9). The pilot study enrolled 12 adults with newly diagnosed AML who received CX-01 as a continuous infusion for 7 days, along with standard induction chemotherapy (cytarabine and idarubicin).

The FDA’s fast-track development program is designed to expedite clinical development and submission of applications for products with the potential to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and address unmet medical needs.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted fast-track designation to CX-01 as a treatment for patients older than 60 years receiving induction therapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

CX-01 also has orphan drug designation from the FDA.

CX-01 is a polysaccharide derived from heparin thought to enhance chemotherapy by disrupting leukemia cell adhesion in bone marrow. Cantex Pharmaceuticals is conducting a randomized, phase 2b study to determine whether CX-01 can improve the efficacy of frontline chemotherapy in patients with AML.

This study builds upon results of a pilot study, which were published in Blood Advances (Blood Adv. 2018 Feb 27;2[4]:381-9). The pilot study enrolled 12 adults with newly diagnosed AML who received CX-01 as a continuous infusion for 7 days, along with standard induction chemotherapy (cytarabine and idarubicin).

The FDA’s fast-track development program is designed to expedite clinical development and submission of applications for products with the potential to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and address unmet medical needs.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted fast-track designation to CX-01 as a treatment for patients older than 60 years receiving induction therapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

CX-01 also has orphan drug designation from the FDA.

CX-01 is a polysaccharide derived from heparin thought to enhance chemotherapy by disrupting leukemia cell adhesion in bone marrow. Cantex Pharmaceuticals is conducting a randomized, phase 2b study to determine whether CX-01 can improve the efficacy of frontline chemotherapy in patients with AML.

This study builds upon results of a pilot study, which were published in Blood Advances (Blood Adv. 2018 Feb 27;2[4]:381-9). The pilot study enrolled 12 adults with newly diagnosed AML who received CX-01 as a continuous infusion for 7 days, along with standard induction chemotherapy (cytarabine and idarubicin).

The FDA’s fast-track development program is designed to expedite clinical development and submission of applications for products with the potential to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and address unmet medical needs.

[email protected]

Once again, a study has shown that when it comes to managing patients with serious advanced malignancies – in this case, metastatic renal cell carcinoma – experience matters.

A review of data on 41,836 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated at 1,222 facilities (TFs) showed that across all cohorts, including patients with known liver and lung metastases who received systemic therapies, treatment-center volume was significantly associated with longer survival, reported Daniel M. Geynisman, MD of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, and his colleagues.

“These findings may help define the optimal treatment environment for the management of patients with mRCC. The improved survival outcomes at higher-volume TFs should also be a call to improve mRCC management at lower-volume facilities. Given the negative externalities of care regionalization, focus should shift toward policies that help equalize mRCC management at lower-volume TFs by expanding treatment options, clinical trial access, and specialized resource availability,” the researchers wrote. Their report is in European Urology.

The investigators noted that several studies have demonstrated that patients with localized RCC treated at high-volume centers had better postoperative outcomes and few complications following surgery for renal cancer, but whether treatment volume makes a difference for patients with metastatic disease was less clear.

To get a better understanding of the association between case volume and outcomes for patients with advanced RCC, the investigators searched the National Cancer Database for information on all U.S. patients with mRCC from 2004 through 2013 for whom survival data were available.

To confirm the association with volume, they created five cohorts with increasingly restrictive inclusion criteria, as follows:

• Cohort A: All patients with survival data (41,836 patients).
• Cohort B: Patients with mRCC who received active treatment of any kind (27,557).
• Cohort C: Patients treated with systemic therapy with or without primary surgery (19,138).
• Cohort D: Patients treated with systemic therapy at the reporting facility (12,000).
• Cohort E: Patients with known sites of metastases (4,933).

The investigators also conducted sensitivity analyses on subcohorts of patients who did not receive nephrectomies in cohorts C, D, and E.

They found in a multivariable analysis that increased volume, measured as cases per year, was associated with reduced overall mortality across all cohorts.

For example, in cohort A, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall mortality for TFs caring for a mean of 5 patients per year was 0.92, compared with 0.84 for centers with 10 cases per year, and 0.74 for TFs caring for a mean of 20 patients per year (P less than .001). Similarly, the respective HRs for patients in cohort E were 0.88, 0.79, and 0.72 (P less than .001).

The overall probability of mortality was also significantly lower in higher-volume centers for those patients in cohorts C, D, and E who did not undergo nephrectomy.

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective nature of the database information, and by the absence of data on treatment regimens used at specific facilities, which may explain mechanisms of the effects they observed.

The investigators did not specify a study funding source. Dr. Geynisman reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Joshi SS et al. Eur Urol. 2018 Sep;74[3]:387-93.

Once again, a study has shown that when it comes to managing patients with serious advanced malignancies – in this case, metastatic renal cell carcinoma – experience matters.

A review of data on 41,836 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated at 1,222 facilities (TFs) showed that across all cohorts, including patients with known liver and lung metastases who received systemic therapies, treatment-center volume was significantly associated with longer survival, reported Daniel M. Geynisman, MD of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, and his colleagues.

“These findings may help define the optimal treatment environment for the management of patients with mRCC. The improved survival outcomes at higher-volume TFs should also be a call to improve mRCC management at lower-volume facilities. Given the negative externalities of care regionalization, focus should shift toward policies that help equalize mRCC management at lower-volume TFs by expanding treatment options, clinical trial access, and specialized resource availability,” the researchers wrote. Their report is in European Urology.

The investigators noted that several studies have demonstrated that patients with localized RCC treated at high-volume centers had better postoperative outcomes and few complications following surgery for renal cancer, but whether treatment volume makes a difference for patients with metastatic disease was less clear.

To get a better understanding of the association between case volume and outcomes for patients with advanced RCC, the investigators searched the National Cancer Database for information on all U.S. patients with mRCC from 2004 through 2013 for whom survival data were available.

To confirm the association with volume, they created five cohorts with increasingly restrictive inclusion criteria, as follows:

• Cohort A: All patients with survival data (41,836 patients).
• Cohort B: Patients with mRCC who received active treatment of any kind (27,557).
• Cohort C: Patients treated with systemic therapy with or without primary surgery (19,138).
• Cohort D: Patients treated with systemic therapy at the reporting facility (12,000).
• Cohort E: Patients with known sites of metastases (4,933).

The investigators also conducted sensitivity analyses on subcohorts of patients who did not receive nephrectomies in cohorts C, D, and E.

They found in a multivariable analysis that increased volume, measured as cases per year, was associated with reduced overall mortality across all cohorts.

For example, in cohort A, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall mortality for TFs caring for a mean of 5 patients per year was 0.92, compared with 0.84 for centers with 10 cases per year, and 0.74 for TFs caring for a mean of 20 patients per year (P less than .001). Similarly, the respective HRs for patients in cohort E were 0.88, 0.79, and 0.72 (P less than .001).

The overall probability of mortality was also significantly lower in higher-volume centers for those patients in cohorts C, D, and E who did not undergo nephrectomy.

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective nature of the database information, and by the absence of data on treatment regimens used at specific facilities, which may explain mechanisms of the effects they observed.

The investigators did not specify a study funding source. Dr. Geynisman reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Joshi SS et al. Eur Urol. 2018 Sep;74[3]:387-93.

Once again, a study has shown that when it comes to managing patients with serious advanced malignancies – in this case, metastatic renal cell carcinoma – experience matters.

A review of data on 41,836 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated at 1,222 facilities (TFs) showed that across all cohorts, including patients with known liver and lung metastases who received systemic therapies, treatment-center volume was significantly associated with longer survival, reported Daniel M. Geynisman, MD of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, and his colleagues.

“These findings may help define the optimal treatment environment for the management of patients with mRCC. The improved survival outcomes at higher-volume TFs should also be a call to improve mRCC management at lower-volume facilities. Given the negative externalities of care regionalization, focus should shift toward policies that help equalize mRCC management at lower-volume TFs by expanding treatment options, clinical trial access, and specialized resource availability,” the researchers wrote. Their report is in European Urology.

The investigators noted that several studies have demonstrated that patients with localized RCC treated at high-volume centers had better postoperative outcomes and few complications following surgery for renal cancer, but whether treatment volume makes a difference for patients with metastatic disease was less clear.

To get a better understanding of the association between case volume and outcomes for patients with advanced RCC, the investigators searched the National Cancer Database for information on all U.S. patients with mRCC from 2004 through 2013 for whom survival data were available.

To confirm the association with volume, they created five cohorts with increasingly restrictive inclusion criteria, as follows:

• Cohort A: All patients with survival data (41,836 patients).
• Cohort B: Patients with mRCC who received active treatment of any kind (27,557).
• Cohort C: Patients treated with systemic therapy with or without primary surgery (19,138).
• Cohort D: Patients treated with systemic therapy at the reporting facility (12,000).
• Cohort E: Patients with known sites of metastases (4,933).

The investigators also conducted sensitivity analyses on subcohorts of patients who did not receive nephrectomies in cohorts C, D, and E.

They found in a multivariable analysis that increased volume, measured as cases per year, was associated with reduced overall mortality across all cohorts.

For example, in cohort A, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall mortality for TFs caring for a mean of 5 patients per year was 0.92, compared with 0.84 for centers with 10 cases per year, and 0.74 for TFs caring for a mean of 20 patients per year (P less than .001). Similarly, the respective HRs for patients in cohort E were 0.88, 0.79, and 0.72 (P less than .001).

The overall probability of mortality was also significantly lower in higher-volume centers for those patients in cohorts C, D, and E who did not undergo nephrectomy.

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective nature of the database information, and by the absence of data on treatment regimens used at specific facilities, which may explain mechanisms of the effects they observed.

The investigators did not specify a study funding source. Dr. Geynisman reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Joshi SS et al. Eur Urol. 2018 Sep;74[3]:387-93.

Obesity is a major health problem in the United States. The facts are well known:

• Its prevalence has almost tripled since the early 1960s¹
• More than 35% of US adults are obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²)²
• It increases the risk of comorbid conditions including type 2 diabetes mellitus, heart disease, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, certain cancers, asthma, and osteoarthritis^3,4
• It decreases life expectancy⁵
• Medical costs are up to 6 times higher per patient.⁶

Moreover, obesity is often not appropriately managed, owing to a variety of factors. In this article, we describe use of shared medical appointments as a strategy to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of treating patients with obesity.

Big benefits from small changes in weight

As little as 3% to 5% weight loss is associated with significant clinical benefits, such as improved glycemic control, reduced blood pressure, and reduced cholesterol levels.^7,8 However, many patients are unable to reach this modest goal using current approaches to obesity management.

This failure is partially related to the complexity and chronic nature of obesity, which requires continued medical management from a multidisciplinary team. We believe this is an area of care that can be appropriately addressed through shared medical appointments.

CURRENT APPROACHES

Interventions for obesity have increased along with the prevalence of the disease. Hundreds of diets, exercise plans, natural products, and behavioral interventions are marketed, all claiming to be successful. More-intense treatment options include antiobesity medications, intra-abdominal weight loss devices, and bariatric surgery. Despite the availability of treatments, rates of obesity have not declined.

Counseling is important, but underused

Lifestyle modifications that encompass nutrition, physical activity, and behavioral interventions are the mainstay of obesity treatment.

Intensive interventions work better than less-intensive ones. In large clinical trials in overweight patients with diabetes, those who received intensive lifestyle interventions lost 3 to 5 kg more (3% to 8% of body weight) than those who received brief diet and nutrition counseling, as is often performed in a physician’s office.^9–12 The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that patients whose BMI is 30 kg/m² or higher be offered intensive lifestyle intervention consisting of at least 12 sessions in 1 year.¹³

But fewer than half of primary care practitioners consistently provide specific guidance on diet, exercise, or weight control to patients with obesity, including those with a weight-related comorbidity.¹⁴ The rate has decreased since the 1990s despite the increase in obesity.¹⁵

One reason for the underuse is that many primary care practitioners do not have the training or time to deliver the recommended high-intensity obesity treatment.¹⁴ Plus, evidence does not clearly show a weight loss benefit from low-intensity interventions. Even when patients lose weight, most regain it, and only 20% are able to maintain their weight loss 1 year after treatment ends.¹⁶

Drugs and surgery also underused

Antiobesity medications and bariatric surgery are effective when added to lifestyle interventions, but they are also underused.

Bariatric surgery provides the greatest and most durable weight loss—15% to 30% of body weight—along with improvement in comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes, and its benefits are sustained for at least 10 years.¹⁷ However, fewer than 1% of eligible patients undergo bariatric surgery because of its limited availability, invasive nature, potential complications, limited insurance coverage, and high cost.¹⁷

The story is similar for antiobesity drugs. They are useful adjuncts to lifestyle interventions, providing an additional 3% to 7% weight loss,¹⁸ but fewer than 2% of eligible patients receive them.¹⁹ This may be attributed to their modest effectiveness, weight regain after discontinuation, potential adverse effects, and expense due to lack of insurance coverage.

ARE SHARED MEDICAL APPOINTMEMNTS AN ANSWER?

Although treatments have shown some effectiveness at producing weight loss, none has had a widespread impact on obesity. Lifestyle interventions, drugs, and bariatric surgery continue to be underused. Current treatment models are not providing patients with the intensive interventions needed.

Providers often find themselves offering repetitive advice to patients with obesity regarding nutrition and exercise, while simultaneously trying to manage obesity-related comorbidities, all in a 20-minute appointment. Too often, a patient returns home with prescriptions for hypertension or diabetes but no clear plan for weight management.

What can a shared medical appointment do?

A shared medical appointment is a group medical visit in which several patients with a similar clinical diagnosis, such as obesity, see a multidisciplinary team of healthcare providers. Typically, 5 to 10 patients have consultations with providers during a 60- to 90-minute appointment.²⁰

Part of the session is dedicated to education on the patients’ common medical condition with the goal of improving their self-management, but most of the time is spent addressing individual patient concerns.

Each patient takes a turn consulting with a provider, as in a traditional medical appointment, but in a group setting. This allows others in the group to observe and learn from their peers’ experiences. During this consultation, the patient’s concerns are addressed, medications are managed, necessary tests are ordered, and a treatment plan is made.

Patients can continue to receive follow-up care through shared medical appointments at predetermined times, instead of traditional individual medical appointments.

 

 

BENEFITS OF SHARED APPOINTMENTS

Shared medical appointments could improve patient access, clinical outcomes, and patient and provider satisfaction and decrease costs.^20,21 Since being introduced in the 1990s, their use has dramatically increased. For example, in the first 2 years of conducting shared medical appointments at Cleveland Clinic (2002–2004), there were just 385 shared medical appointments,²¹ but in 2017 there were approximately 12,300. They are used in a variety of medical and surgical specialties, and have been studied most for treating diabetes.^22–24

Increased face time and access

Individual patient follow-up visits typically last 15 to 20 minutes, limiting the provider to seeing a maximum of 6 patients in 90 minutes. In that same time in the setting of a shared appointment, a multidisciplinary team can see up to 10 patients, and the patients receive up to 90 minutes of time with multiple providers.

Additionally, shared medical appointments can improve patient access to timely appointments. In a busy bariatric surgery practice, implementing shared medical appointments reduced patients’ wait time for an appointment by more than half.²⁵ This is particularly important for patients with obesity, who usually require 12 to 26 appointments per year.

Improved patient outcomes

Use of shared medical appointments has improved clinical outcomes compared with traditional care. Patients with type 2 diabetes who attend shared medical appointments are more likely to reach target hemoglobin A_1c and blood pressure levels.^22­­−24 These benefits may be attributed to increased access to care, improved self-management skills, more frequent visits, peer support of the group, and the synergistic knowledge of multiple providers on the shared medical appointment team.

Although some trials reported patient retention rates of 75% to 90% in shared medical appointments, many trials did not report their rates. It is likely that some patients declined randomization to avoid shared medical appointments, which could have led to potential attrition and selection biases.²³

Increased patient and provider satisfaction

Both patients and providers report high satisfaction with shared medical appointments.^22,26 Although patients may initially hesitate to participate, their opinions significantly improve after attending 1 session.²⁶ From 85% to 90% of patients who attend a shared medical appointment schedule their next follow-up appointment as a shared appointment as well.^21,25

In comparative studies, patients who attended shared medical appointments had satisfaction rates equal to or higher than rates in patients who participated in usual care,²² noting better access to care and more sensitivity to their needs.²⁷ Providers report greater satisfaction from working more directly with a team of providers, clearing up a backlogged schedule, and adding variety to their practice.^21,24

Decreased costs

Data on the cost-effectiveness of shared medical appointments are mixed; however, some studies have shown that they are associated with a decrease in hospital admissions and emergency department visits.²² It seems reasonable to assume that, in an appropriate patient population, shared medical appointments can be cost-effective owing to increased provider productivity, but more research is needed to verify this.

CHALLENGES TO STARTING SHARED APPOINTMENTS FOR OBESITY

Despite their potential to provide comprehensive care to patients, shared medical appointments have limitations. These need to be addressed before implementing a shared medical appointment program.

Adequate resources and staff training

To be successful, a shared medical appointment program needs to have intensive physical and staffing resources. You need a space large enough to accommodate the group and access to the necessary equipment (eg, projector, whiteboard) for educational sessions. Larger or armless chairs may better accommodate patients with obesity. Facilitators need training in how to lead the group sessions, including time management and handling conflicts between patients. Schedulers and clinical intake staff need training in answering patient questions regarding these appointments.

Maintaining patient attendance

The benefits of provider efficiency rest on having an adequate number of patients attend the shared appointments.²¹ Patient cancellations and no-shows decrease both the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of this model, and they detract from the peer support and group learning that occurs in the group dynamic. To help minimize patient dropout, a discussion of patient expectations should take place prior to enrollment in shared medical appointments. This should include information on the concept of shared appointments, frequency and duration of appointments, and realistic weight loss goals.

Logistical challenges

A shared medical appointment requires a longer patient time slot and is usually less flexible than an individual appointment. Not all patients can take the time for a prescheduled 60- to 90-minute appointment. However, reduced waiting-room time and increased face time with a provider offset some of these challenges.

Recruiting patients

A shared medical appointment is a novel experience for some, and concerns about it may make it a challenge to recruit patients. Patients might worry that the presence of the group will compromise the patient-doctor relationship. Other concerns include potential irrelevance of other patients’ medical issues and reluctance to participate because of body image and the stigma of obesity.

One solution is to select patients from your existing practice so that the individual patient-provider relationship is established before introducing the concept of shared appointments. You will need to explain how shared appointments work, discuss their pros and cons, stress your expectations about attendance and confidentiality, and address any concerns of the patient. It is also important to emphasize that nearly all patients find shared medical appointments useful.

Once a group is established, it may be a challenge to keep a constant group membership to promote positive group dynamics. In practice, patients may drop out or be added, and facilitators need to be able to integrate new members into the group. It is important to emphasize to the group that obesity is chronic and that patients at all stages and levels of treatment can contribute to group learning.

Despite the advantages of shared medical appointments, some patients may not find them useful, even after attending several sessions. These patients should be offered individual follow-up visits. Also, shared appointments may not be suitable for patients who cannot speak English very well, are hearing-impaired, have significant cognitive impairment, or have acute medical issues.

 

 

Maintaining patient confidentiality

Maintaining confidentiality of personal and health information in a shared medical appointment is an important concern for patients but can be appropriately managed. In a survey of patients attending pulmonary hypertension shared medical appointments, 24% had concerns about confidentiality before participating, but after a few sessions, this rate was cut in half.²⁸

Patients have reported initially withholding some information, but over time, they usually become more comfortable with the group and disclose more helpful information.²⁹ Strategies to ensure confidentiality include having patients sign a confidentiality agreement at each appointment, providing specific instruction on what characterizes confidentiality breaches, and allowing patients the opportunity to schedule individual appointments as needed.

Ensuring insurance coverage

A shared medical appointment should be billed as an individual medical appointment for level of care, rather than time spent with the provider. This ensures that insurance coverage and copayments are the same as for individual medical appointments.

Lack of insurance coverage is a major barrier to obesity treatment in general. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimburses intensive behavioral obesity treatment delivered by a primary care practitioner, but limits it to 1 year of treatment and requires patients to meet weight loss goals. Some individual and employer-based healthcare plans do not cover dietitian visits, weight management programs, or antiobesity prescriptions.

EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS IN OBESITY

Few studies have investigated the use of shared medical appointments in obesity treatment. In the pediatric population, these programs significantly decreased BMI and some other anthropometric measurements,^30–32 but they did not consistently involve a prescribing provider. This means they did not manage medications or comorbidities as would be expected in a shared medical appointment.

In adults, reported effects have been encouraging, although the studies are not particularly robust. In a 2-year observational study of a single physician conducting biweekly weight management shared medical appointments, participants lost 1% of their baseline weight, while those continuing with usual care gained 0.8%, a statistically significant difference.³³ However, participation rates were low, with patients attending an average of only 3 shared medical appointments during the study.

In a meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials of shared medical appointments for patients with type 2 diabetes, only 3 studies reported weight outcomes.²³ These results indicated a trend toward weight loss among patients attending shared appointments, but they were not statistically significant.

Positive results also were reported by the Veterans Administration’s MOVE! (Managing Overweight/obesity for Veterans Everywhere) program.³⁴ Participants in shared medical appointments reported that they felt empowered to make positive lifestyle changes, gained knowledge about obesity, were held accountable by their peers, and appreciated the individualized care they received from the multidisciplinary healthcare teams.

A systematic review involving 336 participants in group-based obesity interventions found group treatment produced more robust weight loss than individual treatment.³⁵ However, shared medical appointments are different from weight loss groups in that they combine an educational session and a medical appointment in a peer-group setting, which requires a provider with prescribing privileges to be present. Thus, shared medical appointments can manage medications as well as weight-related comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and hyperlipidemia.

One more point is that continued attendance at shared medical appointments, even after successful weight loss, may help to maintain the weight loss, which has otherwise been found to be extremely challenging using traditional medical approaches.

WHO SHOULD BE ON THE TEAM?

Because obesity is multifactorial, it requires a comprehensive treatment approach that can be difficult to deliver given the limited time of an individual appointment. In a shared appointment, providers across multiple specialties can meet with patients at the same time to coordinate approaches to obesity treatment.

A multidisciplinary team for shared medical appointments for obesity needs a physician or a nurse practitioner—or ideally, both— who specializes in obesity to facilitate the session. Other key providers include a registered dietitian, an exercise physiologist, a behavioral health specialist, a sleep specialist, and a social worker to participate as needed in the educational component of the appointment or act as outside consultants.

WHAT ARE REALISTIC TARGETS?

• Nutrition
• Physical activity
• Appetite control
• Sleep
• Stress and mood disorders.

Nutrition

A calorie deficit of 500 to 750 calories per day is recommended for weight loss.^7,8 Although there is no consensus on the best nutritional content of a diet, adherence to a diet is a significant predictor of weight loss.³⁶ One reason diets fail to bring about weight loss is that patients tend to underestimate their caloric intake by almost 50%.³⁷ Thus, they may benefit from a structured and supervised diet plan.

A dietitian can help patients develop an individualized diet plan that will promote adherence, which includes specific information on food choices, portion sizes, and timing of meals.

Physical activity

At least 150 minutes of physical activity per week is recommended for weight loss, and 200 to 300 minutes per week is recommended for long-term weight maintenance.^7,8

An exercise physiologist can help patients design a personalized exercise plan to help achieve these goals. This plan should take into account the patient’s cardiac status, activity level, degree of mobility, and lifestyle.

Most patients are not able to achieve the recommended physical activity goals initially, and activity levels need to be gradually increased over a period of weeks to months. Patients who were previously inactive or have evidence of cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease may require a cardiopulmonary assessment, including an electrocardiogram and cardiac stress test, before starting an exercise program.

 

 

Appetite control

It is very difficult for patients to lose weight without appetite control. Weight loss that results from diet and exercise is often accompanied by a change in weight-regulating hormones (eg, leptin, ghrelin, peptide YY, and cholecystokinin) that promote weight regain.³⁸ Thus, multiple compensatory mechanisms promote weight regain through increases in appetite and decreases in energy expenditure, resisting weight loss efforts.

Antiobesity drugs can help mitigate these adaptive weight-promoting responses through several mechanisms. They are indicated for use with lifestyle interventions for patients with a BMI of at least 30 mg/kg² or a BMI of at least 27 kg/m² with an obesity-related comorbidity.

These drugs promote an additional 3% to 7% weight loss when added to lifestyle interventions.¹⁸ But their effects are limited without appropriate lifestyle interventions.

Sleep

Adequate sleep is an often-overlooked component of obesity treatment. Inadequate sleep is associated with weight gain and an appetite-inducing hormone profile.³⁹ Just 2 days of sleep deprivation in healthy normal-weight adult men was associated with a 70% increase in the ghrelin-to-leptin ratio, which showed a linear relationship with self-reported increased hunger.³⁹ Sleep disorders, especially obstructive sleep apnea, are common in patients with obesity but are often underdiagnosed and undertreated.⁴⁰

Healthy sleep habits and sleep quality should be addressed in shared medical appointments for obesity, as patients may be unaware of the impact that sleep may be having on their obesity treatment. The STOP-BANG questionnaire (­snoring, tiredness, observed apnea, high blood pressure, BMI, age, neck circumference, and male sex) is a simple and reliable tool to screen for obstructive sleep apnea.⁴¹ Patients with symptoms of a sleep disorder should be referred to a sleep specialist for diagnosis and management.

Stress management and mood disorders

Stress and psychiatric disorders are underappreciated contributors to obesity. All patients receiving obesity treatment need to be screened for mood disorders and suicidal ideation.⁸

Chronic stress promotes weight gain through activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis, whereby increased cortisol levels enhance appetite and accumulation of visceral fat.⁴² In addition, obesity is associated with a 25% increased risk of mood disorders, although the mechanism and direction of this association are unclear.⁴³ Weight gain as a side effect of antidepressant or other psychiatric medications is another important consideration.

Management of stress and psychiatric disorders through goal-setting, self-monitoring, and patient education is vital to help patients fully participate in lifestyle changes and maximize weight loss. Patients participating in shared medical appointments usually benefit from consultations with psychiatrists or psychologists to manage psychiatric comorbidities and assist with adherence to behavior modification. 


IN FAVOR OF SHARED MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS FOR OBESITY

Shared medical appointments can be an effective method of addressing the challenges of treating patients with obesity, using a multidisciplinary approach that combines nutrition, physical activity, appetite suppression, sleep improvement, and stress management. In addition, shared appointments allow practitioners to treat the primary problem of excess weight, rather than just its comorbidities, recognizing that obesity is a chronic disease that requires long-term, individualized treatment. Satisfaction rates are high for both patients and providers. Overall, education is essential to implementing and maintaining a successful shared medical appointment program.

Obesity is a major health problem in the United States. The facts are well known:

• Its prevalence has almost tripled since the early 1960s¹
• More than 35% of US adults are obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²)²
• It increases the risk of comorbid conditions including type 2 diabetes mellitus, heart disease, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, certain cancers, asthma, and osteoarthritis^3,4
• It decreases life expectancy⁵
• Medical costs are up to 6 times higher per patient.⁶

Moreover, obesity is often not appropriately managed, owing to a variety of factors. In this article, we describe use of shared medical appointments as a strategy to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of treating patients with obesity.

Big benefits from small changes in weight

As little as 3% to 5% weight loss is associated with significant clinical benefits, such as improved glycemic control, reduced blood pressure, and reduced cholesterol levels.^7,8 However, many patients are unable to reach this modest goal using current approaches to obesity management.

This failure is partially related to the complexity and chronic nature of obesity, which requires continued medical management from a multidisciplinary team. We believe this is an area of care that can be appropriately addressed through shared medical appointments.

CURRENT APPROACHES

Interventions for obesity have increased along with the prevalence of the disease. Hundreds of diets, exercise plans, natural products, and behavioral interventions are marketed, all claiming to be successful. More-intense treatment options include antiobesity medications, intra-abdominal weight loss devices, and bariatric surgery. Despite the availability of treatments, rates of obesity have not declined.

Counseling is important, but underused

Lifestyle modifications that encompass nutrition, physical activity, and behavioral interventions are the mainstay of obesity treatment.

Intensive interventions work better than less-intensive ones. In large clinical trials in overweight patients with diabetes, those who received intensive lifestyle interventions lost 3 to 5 kg more (3% to 8% of body weight) than those who received brief diet and nutrition counseling, as is often performed in a physician’s office.^9–12 The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that patients whose BMI is 30 kg/m² or higher be offered intensive lifestyle intervention consisting of at least 12 sessions in 1 year.¹³

But fewer than half of primary care practitioners consistently provide specific guidance on diet, exercise, or weight control to patients with obesity, including those with a weight-related comorbidity.¹⁴ The rate has decreased since the 1990s despite the increase in obesity.¹⁵

One reason for the underuse is that many primary care practitioners do not have the training or time to deliver the recommended high-intensity obesity treatment.¹⁴ Plus, evidence does not clearly show a weight loss benefit from low-intensity interventions. Even when patients lose weight, most regain it, and only 20% are able to maintain their weight loss 1 year after treatment ends.¹⁶

Drugs and surgery also underused

Antiobesity medications and bariatric surgery are effective when added to lifestyle interventions, but they are also underused.

Bariatric surgery provides the greatest and most durable weight loss—15% to 30% of body weight—along with improvement in comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes, and its benefits are sustained for at least 10 years.¹⁷ However, fewer than 1% of eligible patients undergo bariatric surgery because of its limited availability, invasive nature, potential complications, limited insurance coverage, and high cost.¹⁷

The story is similar for antiobesity drugs. They are useful adjuncts to lifestyle interventions, providing an additional 3% to 7% weight loss,¹⁸ but fewer than 2% of eligible patients receive them.¹⁹ This may be attributed to their modest effectiveness, weight regain after discontinuation, potential adverse effects, and expense due to lack of insurance coverage.

ARE SHARED MEDICAL APPOINTMEMNTS AN ANSWER?

Although treatments have shown some effectiveness at producing weight loss, none has had a widespread impact on obesity. Lifestyle interventions, drugs, and bariatric surgery continue to be underused. Current treatment models are not providing patients with the intensive interventions needed.

Providers often find themselves offering repetitive advice to patients with obesity regarding nutrition and exercise, while simultaneously trying to manage obesity-related comorbidities, all in a 20-minute appointment. Too often, a patient returns home with prescriptions for hypertension or diabetes but no clear plan for weight management.

What can a shared medical appointment do?

A shared medical appointment is a group medical visit in which several patients with a similar clinical diagnosis, such as obesity, see a multidisciplinary team of healthcare providers. Typically, 5 to 10 patients have consultations with providers during a 60- to 90-minute appointment.²⁰

Part of the session is dedicated to education on the patients’ common medical condition with the goal of improving their self-management, but most of the time is spent addressing individual patient concerns.

Each patient takes a turn consulting with a provider, as in a traditional medical appointment, but in a group setting. This allows others in the group to observe and learn from their peers’ experiences. During this consultation, the patient’s concerns are addressed, medications are managed, necessary tests are ordered, and a treatment plan is made.

Patients can continue to receive follow-up care through shared medical appointments at predetermined times, instead of traditional individual medical appointments.

 

 

BENEFITS OF SHARED APPOINTMENTS

Shared medical appointments could improve patient access, clinical outcomes, and patient and provider satisfaction and decrease costs.^20,21 Since being introduced in the 1990s, their use has dramatically increased. For example, in the first 2 years of conducting shared medical appointments at Cleveland Clinic (2002–2004), there were just 385 shared medical appointments,²¹ but in 2017 there were approximately 12,300. They are used in a variety of medical and surgical specialties, and have been studied most for treating diabetes.^22–24

Increased face time and access

Individual patient follow-up visits typically last 15 to 20 minutes, limiting the provider to seeing a maximum of 6 patients in 90 minutes. In that same time in the setting of a shared appointment, a multidisciplinary team can see up to 10 patients, and the patients receive up to 90 minutes of time with multiple providers.

Additionally, shared medical appointments can improve patient access to timely appointments. In a busy bariatric surgery practice, implementing shared medical appointments reduced patients’ wait time for an appointment by more than half.²⁵ This is particularly important for patients with obesity, who usually require 12 to 26 appointments per year.

Improved patient outcomes

Use of shared medical appointments has improved clinical outcomes compared with traditional care. Patients with type 2 diabetes who attend shared medical appointments are more likely to reach target hemoglobin A_1c and blood pressure levels.^22­­−24 These benefits may be attributed to increased access to care, improved self-management skills, more frequent visits, peer support of the group, and the synergistic knowledge of multiple providers on the shared medical appointment team.

Although some trials reported patient retention rates of 75% to 90% in shared medical appointments, many trials did not report their rates. It is likely that some patients declined randomization to avoid shared medical appointments, which could have led to potential attrition and selection biases.²³

Increased patient and provider satisfaction

Both patients and providers report high satisfaction with shared medical appointments.^22,26 Although patients may initially hesitate to participate, their opinions significantly improve after attending 1 session.²⁶ From 85% to 90% of patients who attend a shared medical appointment schedule their next follow-up appointment as a shared appointment as well.^21,25

In comparative studies, patients who attended shared medical appointments had satisfaction rates equal to or higher than rates in patients who participated in usual care,²² noting better access to care and more sensitivity to their needs.²⁷ Providers report greater satisfaction from working more directly with a team of providers, clearing up a backlogged schedule, and adding variety to their practice.^21,24

Decreased costs

Data on the cost-effectiveness of shared medical appointments are mixed; however, some studies have shown that they are associated with a decrease in hospital admissions and emergency department visits.²² It seems reasonable to assume that, in an appropriate patient population, shared medical appointments can be cost-effective owing to increased provider productivity, but more research is needed to verify this.

CHALLENGES TO STARTING SHARED APPOINTMENTS FOR OBESITY

Despite their potential to provide comprehensive care to patients, shared medical appointments have limitations. These need to be addressed before implementing a shared medical appointment program.

Adequate resources and staff training

To be successful, a shared medical appointment program needs to have intensive physical and staffing resources. You need a space large enough to accommodate the group and access to the necessary equipment (eg, projector, whiteboard) for educational sessions. Larger or armless chairs may better accommodate patients with obesity. Facilitators need training in how to lead the group sessions, including time management and handling conflicts between patients. Schedulers and clinical intake staff need training in answering patient questions regarding these appointments.

Maintaining patient attendance

The benefits of provider efficiency rest on having an adequate number of patients attend the shared appointments.²¹ Patient cancellations and no-shows decrease both the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of this model, and they detract from the peer support and group learning that occurs in the group dynamic. To help minimize patient dropout, a discussion of patient expectations should take place prior to enrollment in shared medical appointments. This should include information on the concept of shared appointments, frequency and duration of appointments, and realistic weight loss goals.

Logistical challenges

A shared medical appointment requires a longer patient time slot and is usually less flexible than an individual appointment. Not all patients can take the time for a prescheduled 60- to 90-minute appointment. However, reduced waiting-room time and increased face time with a provider offset some of these challenges.

Recruiting patients

A shared medical appointment is a novel experience for some, and concerns about it may make it a challenge to recruit patients. Patients might worry that the presence of the group will compromise the patient-doctor relationship. Other concerns include potential irrelevance of other patients’ medical issues and reluctance to participate because of body image and the stigma of obesity.

One solution is to select patients from your existing practice so that the individual patient-provider relationship is established before introducing the concept of shared appointments. You will need to explain how shared appointments work, discuss their pros and cons, stress your expectations about attendance and confidentiality, and address any concerns of the patient. It is also important to emphasize that nearly all patients find shared medical appointments useful.

Once a group is established, it may be a challenge to keep a constant group membership to promote positive group dynamics. In practice, patients may drop out or be added, and facilitators need to be able to integrate new members into the group. It is important to emphasize to the group that obesity is chronic and that patients at all stages and levels of treatment can contribute to group learning.

Despite the advantages of shared medical appointments, some patients may not find them useful, even after attending several sessions. These patients should be offered individual follow-up visits. Also, shared appointments may not be suitable for patients who cannot speak English very well, are hearing-impaired, have significant cognitive impairment, or have acute medical issues.

 

 

Maintaining patient confidentiality

Maintaining confidentiality of personal and health information in a shared medical appointment is an important concern for patients but can be appropriately managed. In a survey of patients attending pulmonary hypertension shared medical appointments, 24% had concerns about confidentiality before participating, but after a few sessions, this rate was cut in half.²⁸

Patients have reported initially withholding some information, but over time, they usually become more comfortable with the group and disclose more helpful information.²⁹ Strategies to ensure confidentiality include having patients sign a confidentiality agreement at each appointment, providing specific instruction on what characterizes confidentiality breaches, and allowing patients the opportunity to schedule individual appointments as needed.

Ensuring insurance coverage

A shared medical appointment should be billed as an individual medical appointment for level of care, rather than time spent with the provider. This ensures that insurance coverage and copayments are the same as for individual medical appointments.

Lack of insurance coverage is a major barrier to obesity treatment in general. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimburses intensive behavioral obesity treatment delivered by a primary care practitioner, but limits it to 1 year of treatment and requires patients to meet weight loss goals. Some individual and employer-based healthcare plans do not cover dietitian visits, weight management programs, or antiobesity prescriptions.

EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS IN OBESITY

Few studies have investigated the use of shared medical appointments in obesity treatment. In the pediatric population, these programs significantly decreased BMI and some other anthropometric measurements,^30–32 but they did not consistently involve a prescribing provider. This means they did not manage medications or comorbidities as would be expected in a shared medical appointment.

In adults, reported effects have been encouraging, although the studies are not particularly robust. In a 2-year observational study of a single physician conducting biweekly weight management shared medical appointments, participants lost 1% of their baseline weight, while those continuing with usual care gained 0.8%, a statistically significant difference.³³ However, participation rates were low, with patients attending an average of only 3 shared medical appointments during the study.

In a meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials of shared medical appointments for patients with type 2 diabetes, only 3 studies reported weight outcomes.²³ These results indicated a trend toward weight loss among patients attending shared appointments, but they were not statistically significant.

Positive results also were reported by the Veterans Administration’s MOVE! (Managing Overweight/obesity for Veterans Everywhere) program.³⁴ Participants in shared medical appointments reported that they felt empowered to make positive lifestyle changes, gained knowledge about obesity, were held accountable by their peers, and appreciated the individualized care they received from the multidisciplinary healthcare teams.

A systematic review involving 336 participants in group-based obesity interventions found group treatment produced more robust weight loss than individual treatment.³⁵ However, shared medical appointments are different from weight loss groups in that they combine an educational session and a medical appointment in a peer-group setting, which requires a provider with prescribing privileges to be present. Thus, shared medical appointments can manage medications as well as weight-related comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and hyperlipidemia.

One more point is that continued attendance at shared medical appointments, even after successful weight loss, may help to maintain the weight loss, which has otherwise been found to be extremely challenging using traditional medical approaches.

WHO SHOULD BE ON THE TEAM?

Because obesity is multifactorial, it requires a comprehensive treatment approach that can be difficult to deliver given the limited time of an individual appointment. In a shared appointment, providers across multiple specialties can meet with patients at the same time to coordinate approaches to obesity treatment.

A multidisciplinary team for shared medical appointments for obesity needs a physician or a nurse practitioner—or ideally, both— who specializes in obesity to facilitate the session. Other key providers include a registered dietitian, an exercise physiologist, a behavioral health specialist, a sleep specialist, and a social worker to participate as needed in the educational component of the appointment or act as outside consultants.

WHAT ARE REALISTIC TARGETS?

• Nutrition
• Physical activity
• Appetite control
• Sleep
• Stress and mood disorders.

Nutrition

A calorie deficit of 500 to 750 calories per day is recommended for weight loss.^7,8 Although there is no consensus on the best nutritional content of a diet, adherence to a diet is a significant predictor of weight loss.³⁶ One reason diets fail to bring about weight loss is that patients tend to underestimate their caloric intake by almost 50%.³⁷ Thus, they may benefit from a structured and supervised diet plan.

A dietitian can help patients develop an individualized diet plan that will promote adherence, which includes specific information on food choices, portion sizes, and timing of meals.

Physical activity

At least 150 minutes of physical activity per week is recommended for weight loss, and 200 to 300 minutes per week is recommended for long-term weight maintenance.^7,8

An exercise physiologist can help patients design a personalized exercise plan to help achieve these goals. This plan should take into account the patient’s cardiac status, activity level, degree of mobility, and lifestyle.

Most patients are not able to achieve the recommended physical activity goals initially, and activity levels need to be gradually increased over a period of weeks to months. Patients who were previously inactive or have evidence of cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease may require a cardiopulmonary assessment, including an electrocardiogram and cardiac stress test, before starting an exercise program.

 

 

Appetite control

It is very difficult for patients to lose weight without appetite control. Weight loss that results from diet and exercise is often accompanied by a change in weight-regulating hormones (eg, leptin, ghrelin, peptide YY, and cholecystokinin) that promote weight regain.³⁸ Thus, multiple compensatory mechanisms promote weight regain through increases in appetite and decreases in energy expenditure, resisting weight loss efforts.

Antiobesity drugs can help mitigate these adaptive weight-promoting responses through several mechanisms. They are indicated for use with lifestyle interventions for patients with a BMI of at least 30 mg/kg² or a BMI of at least 27 kg/m² with an obesity-related comorbidity.

These drugs promote an additional 3% to 7% weight loss when added to lifestyle interventions.¹⁸ But their effects are limited without appropriate lifestyle interventions.

Sleep

Adequate sleep is an often-overlooked component of obesity treatment. Inadequate sleep is associated with weight gain and an appetite-inducing hormone profile.³⁹ Just 2 days of sleep deprivation in healthy normal-weight adult men was associated with a 70% increase in the ghrelin-to-leptin ratio, which showed a linear relationship with self-reported increased hunger.³⁹ Sleep disorders, especially obstructive sleep apnea, are common in patients with obesity but are often underdiagnosed and undertreated.⁴⁰

Healthy sleep habits and sleep quality should be addressed in shared medical appointments for obesity, as patients may be unaware of the impact that sleep may be having on their obesity treatment. The STOP-BANG questionnaire (­snoring, tiredness, observed apnea, high blood pressure, BMI, age, neck circumference, and male sex) is a simple and reliable tool to screen for obstructive sleep apnea.⁴¹ Patients with symptoms of a sleep disorder should be referred to a sleep specialist for diagnosis and management.

Stress management and mood disorders

Stress and psychiatric disorders are underappreciated contributors to obesity. All patients receiving obesity treatment need to be screened for mood disorders and suicidal ideation.⁸

Chronic stress promotes weight gain through activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis, whereby increased cortisol levels enhance appetite and accumulation of visceral fat.⁴² In addition, obesity is associated with a 25% increased risk of mood disorders, although the mechanism and direction of this association are unclear.⁴³ Weight gain as a side effect of antidepressant or other psychiatric medications is another important consideration.

Management of stress and psychiatric disorders through goal-setting, self-monitoring, and patient education is vital to help patients fully participate in lifestyle changes and maximize weight loss. Patients participating in shared medical appointments usually benefit from consultations with psychiatrists or psychologists to manage psychiatric comorbidities and assist with adherence to behavior modification. 


IN FAVOR OF SHARED MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS FOR OBESITY

Shared medical appointments can be an effective method of addressing the challenges of treating patients with obesity, using a multidisciplinary approach that combines nutrition, physical activity, appetite suppression, sleep improvement, and stress management. In addition, shared appointments allow practitioners to treat the primary problem of excess weight, rather than just its comorbidities, recognizing that obesity is a chronic disease that requires long-term, individualized treatment. Satisfaction rates are high for both patients and providers. Overall, education is essential to implementing and maintaining a successful shared medical appointment program.

Obesity is a major health problem in the United States. The facts are well known:

• Its prevalence has almost tripled since the early 1960s¹
• More than 35% of US adults are obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²)²
• It increases the risk of comorbid conditions including type 2 diabetes mellitus, heart disease, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, certain cancers, asthma, and osteoarthritis^3,4
• It decreases life expectancy⁵
• Medical costs are up to 6 times higher per patient.⁶

Moreover, obesity is often not appropriately managed, owing to a variety of factors. In this article, we describe use of shared medical appointments as a strategy to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of treating patients with obesity.

Big benefits from small changes in weight

As little as 3% to 5% weight loss is associated with significant clinical benefits, such as improved glycemic control, reduced blood pressure, and reduced cholesterol levels.^7,8 However, many patients are unable to reach this modest goal using current approaches to obesity management.

This failure is partially related to the complexity and chronic nature of obesity, which requires continued medical management from a multidisciplinary team. We believe this is an area of care that can be appropriately addressed through shared medical appointments.

CURRENT APPROACHES

Interventions for obesity have increased along with the prevalence of the disease. Hundreds of diets, exercise plans, natural products, and behavioral interventions are marketed, all claiming to be successful. More-intense treatment options include antiobesity medications, intra-abdominal weight loss devices, and bariatric surgery. Despite the availability of treatments, rates of obesity have not declined.

Counseling is important, but underused

Lifestyle modifications that encompass nutrition, physical activity, and behavioral interventions are the mainstay of obesity treatment.

Intensive interventions work better than less-intensive ones. In large clinical trials in overweight patients with diabetes, those who received intensive lifestyle interventions lost 3 to 5 kg more (3% to 8% of body weight) than those who received brief diet and nutrition counseling, as is often performed in a physician’s office.^9–12 The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that patients whose BMI is 30 kg/m² or higher be offered intensive lifestyle intervention consisting of at least 12 sessions in 1 year.¹³

But fewer than half of primary care practitioners consistently provide specific guidance on diet, exercise, or weight control to patients with obesity, including those with a weight-related comorbidity.¹⁴ The rate has decreased since the 1990s despite the increase in obesity.¹⁵

One reason for the underuse is that many primary care practitioners do not have the training or time to deliver the recommended high-intensity obesity treatment.¹⁴ Plus, evidence does not clearly show a weight loss benefit from low-intensity interventions. Even when patients lose weight, most regain it, and only 20% are able to maintain their weight loss 1 year after treatment ends.¹⁶

Drugs and surgery also underused

Antiobesity medications and bariatric surgery are effective when added to lifestyle interventions, but they are also underused.

Bariatric surgery provides the greatest and most durable weight loss—15% to 30% of body weight—along with improvement in comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes, and its benefits are sustained for at least 10 years.¹⁷ However, fewer than 1% of eligible patients undergo bariatric surgery because of its limited availability, invasive nature, potential complications, limited insurance coverage, and high cost.¹⁷

The story is similar for antiobesity drugs. They are useful adjuncts to lifestyle interventions, providing an additional 3% to 7% weight loss,¹⁸ but fewer than 2% of eligible patients receive them.¹⁹ This may be attributed to their modest effectiveness, weight regain after discontinuation, potential adverse effects, and expense due to lack of insurance coverage.

ARE SHARED MEDICAL APPOINTMEMNTS AN ANSWER?

Although treatments have shown some effectiveness at producing weight loss, none has had a widespread impact on obesity. Lifestyle interventions, drugs, and bariatric surgery continue to be underused. Current treatment models are not providing patients with the intensive interventions needed.

Providers often find themselves offering repetitive advice to patients with obesity regarding nutrition and exercise, while simultaneously trying to manage obesity-related comorbidities, all in a 20-minute appointment. Too often, a patient returns home with prescriptions for hypertension or diabetes but no clear plan for weight management.

What can a shared medical appointment do?

A shared medical appointment is a group medical visit in which several patients with a similar clinical diagnosis, such as obesity, see a multidisciplinary team of healthcare providers. Typically, 5 to 10 patients have consultations with providers during a 60- to 90-minute appointment.²⁰

Part of the session is dedicated to education on the patients’ common medical condition with the goal of improving their self-management, but most of the time is spent addressing individual patient concerns.

Each patient takes a turn consulting with a provider, as in a traditional medical appointment, but in a group setting. This allows others in the group to observe and learn from their peers’ experiences. During this consultation, the patient’s concerns are addressed, medications are managed, necessary tests are ordered, and a treatment plan is made.

Patients can continue to receive follow-up care through shared medical appointments at predetermined times, instead of traditional individual medical appointments.

 

 

BENEFITS OF SHARED APPOINTMENTS

Shared medical appointments could improve patient access, clinical outcomes, and patient and provider satisfaction and decrease costs.^20,21 Since being introduced in the 1990s, their use has dramatically increased. For example, in the first 2 years of conducting shared medical appointments at Cleveland Clinic (2002–2004), there were just 385 shared medical appointments,²¹ but in 2017 there were approximately 12,300. They are used in a variety of medical and surgical specialties, and have been studied most for treating diabetes.^22–24

Increased face time and access

Individual patient follow-up visits typically last 15 to 20 minutes, limiting the provider to seeing a maximum of 6 patients in 90 minutes. In that same time in the setting of a shared appointment, a multidisciplinary team can see up to 10 patients, and the patients receive up to 90 minutes of time with multiple providers.

Additionally, shared medical appointments can improve patient access to timely appointments. In a busy bariatric surgery practice, implementing shared medical appointments reduced patients’ wait time for an appointment by more than half.²⁵ This is particularly important for patients with obesity, who usually require 12 to 26 appointments per year.

Improved patient outcomes

Use of shared medical appointments has improved clinical outcomes compared with traditional care. Patients with type 2 diabetes who attend shared medical appointments are more likely to reach target hemoglobin A_1c and blood pressure levels.^22­­−24 These benefits may be attributed to increased access to care, improved self-management skills, more frequent visits, peer support of the group, and the synergistic knowledge of multiple providers on the shared medical appointment team.

Although some trials reported patient retention rates of 75% to 90% in shared medical appointments, many trials did not report their rates. It is likely that some patients declined randomization to avoid shared medical appointments, which could have led to potential attrition and selection biases.²³

Increased patient and provider satisfaction

Both patients and providers report high satisfaction with shared medical appointments.^22,26 Although patients may initially hesitate to participate, their opinions significantly improve after attending 1 session.²⁶ From 85% to 90% of patients who attend a shared medical appointment schedule their next follow-up appointment as a shared appointment as well.^21,25

In comparative studies, patients who attended shared medical appointments had satisfaction rates equal to or higher than rates in patients who participated in usual care,²² noting better access to care and more sensitivity to their needs.²⁷ Providers report greater satisfaction from working more directly with a team of providers, clearing up a backlogged schedule, and adding variety to their practice.^21,24

Decreased costs

Data on the cost-effectiveness of shared medical appointments are mixed; however, some studies have shown that they are associated with a decrease in hospital admissions and emergency department visits.²² It seems reasonable to assume that, in an appropriate patient population, shared medical appointments can be cost-effective owing to increased provider productivity, but more research is needed to verify this.

CHALLENGES TO STARTING SHARED APPOINTMENTS FOR OBESITY

Despite their potential to provide comprehensive care to patients, shared medical appointments have limitations. These need to be addressed before implementing a shared medical appointment program.

Adequate resources and staff training

To be successful, a shared medical appointment program needs to have intensive physical and staffing resources. You need a space large enough to accommodate the group and access to the necessary equipment (eg, projector, whiteboard) for educational sessions. Larger or armless chairs may better accommodate patients with obesity. Facilitators need training in how to lead the group sessions, including time management and handling conflicts between patients. Schedulers and clinical intake staff need training in answering patient questions regarding these appointments.

Maintaining patient attendance

The benefits of provider efficiency rest on having an adequate number of patients attend the shared appointments.²¹ Patient cancellations and no-shows decrease both the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of this model, and they detract from the peer support and group learning that occurs in the group dynamic. To help minimize patient dropout, a discussion of patient expectations should take place prior to enrollment in shared medical appointments. This should include information on the concept of shared appointments, frequency and duration of appointments, and realistic weight loss goals.

Logistical challenges

A shared medical appointment requires a longer patient time slot and is usually less flexible than an individual appointment. Not all patients can take the time for a prescheduled 60- to 90-minute appointment. However, reduced waiting-room time and increased face time with a provider offset some of these challenges.

Recruiting patients

A shared medical appointment is a novel experience for some, and concerns about it may make it a challenge to recruit patients. Patients might worry that the presence of the group will compromise the patient-doctor relationship. Other concerns include potential irrelevance of other patients’ medical issues and reluctance to participate because of body image and the stigma of obesity.

One solution is to select patients from your existing practice so that the individual patient-provider relationship is established before introducing the concept of shared appointments. You will need to explain how shared appointments work, discuss their pros and cons, stress your expectations about attendance and confidentiality, and address any concerns of the patient. It is also important to emphasize that nearly all patients find shared medical appointments useful.

Once a group is established, it may be a challenge to keep a constant group membership to promote positive group dynamics. In practice, patients may drop out or be added, and facilitators need to be able to integrate new members into the group. It is important to emphasize to the group that obesity is chronic and that patients at all stages and levels of treatment can contribute to group learning.

Despite the advantages of shared medical appointments, some patients may not find them useful, even after attending several sessions. These patients should be offered individual follow-up visits. Also, shared appointments may not be suitable for patients who cannot speak English very well, are hearing-impaired, have significant cognitive impairment, or have acute medical issues.

 

 

Maintaining patient confidentiality

Maintaining confidentiality of personal and health information in a shared medical appointment is an important concern for patients but can be appropriately managed. In a survey of patients attending pulmonary hypertension shared medical appointments, 24% had concerns about confidentiality before participating, but after a few sessions, this rate was cut in half.²⁸

Patients have reported initially withholding some information, but over time, they usually become more comfortable with the group and disclose more helpful information.²⁹ Strategies to ensure confidentiality include having patients sign a confidentiality agreement at each appointment, providing specific instruction on what characterizes confidentiality breaches, and allowing patients the opportunity to schedule individual appointments as needed.

Ensuring insurance coverage

A shared medical appointment should be billed as an individual medical appointment for level of care, rather than time spent with the provider. This ensures that insurance coverage and copayments are the same as for individual medical appointments.

Lack of insurance coverage is a major barrier to obesity treatment in general. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimburses intensive behavioral obesity treatment delivered by a primary care practitioner, but limits it to 1 year of treatment and requires patients to meet weight loss goals. Some individual and employer-based healthcare plans do not cover dietitian visits, weight management programs, or antiobesity prescriptions.

EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS IN OBESITY

Few studies have investigated the use of shared medical appointments in obesity treatment. In the pediatric population, these programs significantly decreased BMI and some other anthropometric measurements,^30–32 but they did not consistently involve a prescribing provider. This means they did not manage medications or comorbidities as would be expected in a shared medical appointment.

In adults, reported effects have been encouraging, although the studies are not particularly robust. In a 2-year observational study of a single physician conducting biweekly weight management shared medical appointments, participants lost 1% of their baseline weight, while those continuing with usual care gained 0.8%, a statistically significant difference.³³ However, participation rates were low, with patients attending an average of only 3 shared medical appointments during the study.

In a meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials of shared medical appointments for patients with type 2 diabetes, only 3 studies reported weight outcomes.²³ These results indicated a trend toward weight loss among patients attending shared appointments, but they were not statistically significant.

Positive results also were reported by the Veterans Administration’s MOVE! (Managing Overweight/obesity for Veterans Everywhere) program.³⁴ Participants in shared medical appointments reported that they felt empowered to make positive lifestyle changes, gained knowledge about obesity, were held accountable by their peers, and appreciated the individualized care they received from the multidisciplinary healthcare teams.

A systematic review involving 336 participants in group-based obesity interventions found group treatment produced more robust weight loss than individual treatment.³⁵ However, shared medical appointments are different from weight loss groups in that they combine an educational session and a medical appointment in a peer-group setting, which requires a provider with prescribing privileges to be present. Thus, shared medical appointments can manage medications as well as weight-related comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and hyperlipidemia.

One more point is that continued attendance at shared medical appointments, even after successful weight loss, may help to maintain the weight loss, which has otherwise been found to be extremely challenging using traditional medical approaches.

WHO SHOULD BE ON THE TEAM?

Because obesity is multifactorial, it requires a comprehensive treatment approach that can be difficult to deliver given the limited time of an individual appointment. In a shared appointment, providers across multiple specialties can meet with patients at the same time to coordinate approaches to obesity treatment.

A multidisciplinary team for shared medical appointments for obesity needs a physician or a nurse practitioner—or ideally, both— who specializes in obesity to facilitate the session. Other key providers include a registered dietitian, an exercise physiologist, a behavioral health specialist, a sleep specialist, and a social worker to participate as needed in the educational component of the appointment or act as outside consultants.

WHAT ARE REALISTIC TARGETS?

• Nutrition
• Physical activity
• Appetite control
• Sleep
• Stress and mood disorders.

Nutrition

A calorie deficit of 500 to 750 calories per day is recommended for weight loss.^7,8 Although there is no consensus on the best nutritional content of a diet, adherence to a diet is a significant predictor of weight loss.³⁶ One reason diets fail to bring about weight loss is that patients tend to underestimate their caloric intake by almost 50%.³⁷ Thus, they may benefit from a structured and supervised diet plan.

A dietitian can help patients develop an individualized diet plan that will promote adherence, which includes specific information on food choices, portion sizes, and timing of meals.

Physical activity

At least 150 minutes of physical activity per week is recommended for weight loss, and 200 to 300 minutes per week is recommended for long-term weight maintenance.^7,8

An exercise physiologist can help patients design a personalized exercise plan to help achieve these goals. This plan should take into account the patient’s cardiac status, activity level, degree of mobility, and lifestyle.

Most patients are not able to achieve the recommended physical activity goals initially, and activity levels need to be gradually increased over a period of weeks to months. Patients who were previously inactive or have evidence of cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease may require a cardiopulmonary assessment, including an electrocardiogram and cardiac stress test, before starting an exercise program.

 

 

Appetite control

It is very difficult for patients to lose weight without appetite control. Weight loss that results from diet and exercise is often accompanied by a change in weight-regulating hormones (eg, leptin, ghrelin, peptide YY, and cholecystokinin) that promote weight regain.³⁸ Thus, multiple compensatory mechanisms promote weight regain through increases in appetite and decreases in energy expenditure, resisting weight loss efforts.

Antiobesity drugs can help mitigate these adaptive weight-promoting responses through several mechanisms. They are indicated for use with lifestyle interventions for patients with a BMI of at least 30 mg/kg² or a BMI of at least 27 kg/m² with an obesity-related comorbidity.

These drugs promote an additional 3% to 7% weight loss when added to lifestyle interventions.¹⁸ But their effects are limited without appropriate lifestyle interventions.

Sleep

Adequate sleep is an often-overlooked component of obesity treatment. Inadequate sleep is associated with weight gain and an appetite-inducing hormone profile.³⁹ Just 2 days of sleep deprivation in healthy normal-weight adult men was associated with a 70% increase in the ghrelin-to-leptin ratio, which showed a linear relationship with self-reported increased hunger.³⁹ Sleep disorders, especially obstructive sleep apnea, are common in patients with obesity but are often underdiagnosed and undertreated.⁴⁰

Healthy sleep habits and sleep quality should be addressed in shared medical appointments for obesity, as patients may be unaware of the impact that sleep may be having on their obesity treatment. The STOP-BANG questionnaire (­snoring, tiredness, observed apnea, high blood pressure, BMI, age, neck circumference, and male sex) is a simple and reliable tool to screen for obstructive sleep apnea.⁴¹ Patients with symptoms of a sleep disorder should be referred to a sleep specialist for diagnosis and management.

Stress management and mood disorders

Stress and psychiatric disorders are underappreciated contributors to obesity. All patients receiving obesity treatment need to be screened for mood disorders and suicidal ideation.⁸

Chronic stress promotes weight gain through activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis, whereby increased cortisol levels enhance appetite and accumulation of visceral fat.⁴² In addition, obesity is associated with a 25% increased risk of mood disorders, although the mechanism and direction of this association are unclear.⁴³ Weight gain as a side effect of antidepressant or other psychiatric medications is another important consideration.

Management of stress and psychiatric disorders through goal-setting, self-monitoring, and patient education is vital to help patients fully participate in lifestyle changes and maximize weight loss. Patients participating in shared medical appointments usually benefit from consultations with psychiatrists or psychologists to manage psychiatric comorbidities and assist with adherence to behavior modification. 


IN FAVOR OF SHARED MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS FOR OBESITY

Shared medical appointments can be an effective method of addressing the challenges of treating patients with obesity, using a multidisciplinary approach that combines nutrition, physical activity, appetite suppression, sleep improvement, and stress management. In addition, shared appointments allow practitioners to treat the primary problem of excess weight, rather than just its comorbidities, recognizing that obesity is a chronic disease that requires long-term, individualized treatment. Satisfaction rates are high for both patients and providers. Overall, education is essential to implementing and maintaining a successful shared medical appointment program.