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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW YORK – The Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 approval of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (IB) as a frontline therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) dramatically improved overall survival rates for patients with this condition. Follow-up data from 8 years after the RESONATE-2 trial indicated that patients with CLL (65 years or older) who remain on IB therapy can expect to live as long as someone in the general population.

Physicians now face two challenges in frontline CLL treatment: finding safe and effective drugs with fewer side effects, allowing patients to maintain therapy; and offering young or genomically high-risk patients treatments that reduce the risk of relapse.

courtesy Dr. Allan

“My preferred approach to CLL treatment is the use of second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, due to their improved toxicity profiles. These drugs are a great frontline option for most, if not all CLL patients,” said John N. Allan, associate professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in his presentation on frontline CLL treatments at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference. “This is true even of older patients or those with comorbidities because this class of drug allows us to keep patients on treatment with excellent long-term outcomes.”

Results from the Alpine trial (NCT03734016), which included patients with and without high genomic risk, confirmed the superiority of the second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib (ZB) versus ibrutinib in terms of overall response rate 86.2% versus 75.5%, progression free survival 2-years after treatment 79.5% versus 67.3%, and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation 15.4% versus 22.2% respectively.

The SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333) demonstrated the effectiveness of ZB versus bendamustine + rituximab combination (BR) therapy in treatment-naive CLL / small lymphocytic leukemia patients with normal and high genomic risk. Overall 24-month progression free survival (PFS) was 85% in the ZB cohort vs. 69% in the BR cohort. This trend held true among high-risk subgroups like patients with an unmutated IgVH gene or 11q22.3 gene deletion.

Therapies known as “doublets” and “triplets” (which include a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor in addition to other drugs) are not FDA approved for frontline CLL treatment. Yet studies suggest that young patients who are better able to tolerate AEs or high-risk patients with a greater risk of relapse (even on monotherapy maintenance), may derive benefits from multidrug frontline treatment.

“With doublets and triplets, doctors add treatment intensity up front so that patients can have a fixed duration of therapy versus continuous indefinite therapy,” said Vu Nguyen MD, a hematologist at Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center. “This is encouraging because if you can have a fixed duration of treatment, patients can come off treatment agents and hopefully have a prolonged remission and normal lifespan without chronic therapy and side effects.”

The CAPTIVATE study confirmed this approach with 3 cycles of IB followed by 12 cycles of IB + venetoclax leading to a 24-month PFS rate of 94% in patients with high risk or relapse. “Furthermore, 95% of study participants patients less than 70 years old completed 12 months of combination treatment without major problems,” said Dr. Allan. He concluded his remarks by noting that “we need longer term data on the use of combination therapy for frontline CLL treatment to confirm if and when it should be used.”

Dr. Allan disclosed relationships with Adaptive Biotechnologies, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Nguyen reported no disclosures.

NEW YORK – The Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 approval of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (IB) as a frontline therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) dramatically improved overall survival rates for patients with this condition. Follow-up data from 8 years after the RESONATE-2 trial indicated that patients with CLL (65 years or older) who remain on IB therapy can expect to live as long as someone in the general population.

Physicians now face two challenges in frontline CLL treatment: finding safe and effective drugs with fewer side effects, allowing patients to maintain therapy; and offering young or genomically high-risk patients treatments that reduce the risk of relapse.

courtesy Dr. Allan

“My preferred approach to CLL treatment is the use of second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, due to their improved toxicity profiles. These drugs are a great frontline option for most, if not all CLL patients,” said John N. Allan, associate professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in his presentation on frontline CLL treatments at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference. “This is true even of older patients or those with comorbidities because this class of drug allows us to keep patients on treatment with excellent long-term outcomes.”

Results from the Alpine trial (NCT03734016), which included patients with and without high genomic risk, confirmed the superiority of the second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib (ZB) versus ibrutinib in terms of overall response rate 86.2% versus 75.5%, progression free survival 2-years after treatment 79.5% versus 67.3%, and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation 15.4% versus 22.2% respectively.

The SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333) demonstrated the effectiveness of ZB versus bendamustine + rituximab combination (BR) therapy in treatment-naive CLL / small lymphocytic leukemia patients with normal and high genomic risk. Overall 24-month progression free survival (PFS) was 85% in the ZB cohort vs. 69% in the BR cohort. This trend held true among high-risk subgroups like patients with an unmutated IgVH gene or 11q22.3 gene deletion.

Therapies known as “doublets” and “triplets” (which include a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor in addition to other drugs) are not FDA approved for frontline CLL treatment. Yet studies suggest that young patients who are better able to tolerate AEs or high-risk patients with a greater risk of relapse (even on monotherapy maintenance), may derive benefits from multidrug frontline treatment.

“With doublets and triplets, doctors add treatment intensity up front so that patients can have a fixed duration of therapy versus continuous indefinite therapy,” said Vu Nguyen MD, a hematologist at Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center. “This is encouraging because if you can have a fixed duration of treatment, patients can come off treatment agents and hopefully have a prolonged remission and normal lifespan without chronic therapy and side effects.”

The CAPTIVATE study confirmed this approach with 3 cycles of IB followed by 12 cycles of IB + venetoclax leading to a 24-month PFS rate of 94% in patients with high risk or relapse. “Furthermore, 95% of study participants patients less than 70 years old completed 12 months of combination treatment without major problems,” said Dr. Allan. He concluded his remarks by noting that “we need longer term data on the use of combination therapy for frontline CLL treatment to confirm if and when it should be used.”

Dr. Allan disclosed relationships with Adaptive Biotechnologies, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Nguyen reported no disclosures.

NEW YORK – The Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 approval of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (IB) as a frontline therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) dramatically improved overall survival rates for patients with this condition. Follow-up data from 8 years after the RESONATE-2 trial indicated that patients with CLL (65 years or older) who remain on IB therapy can expect to live as long as someone in the general population.

Physicians now face two challenges in frontline CLL treatment: finding safe and effective drugs with fewer side effects, allowing patients to maintain therapy; and offering young or genomically high-risk patients treatments that reduce the risk of relapse.

courtesy Dr. Allan

“My preferred approach to CLL treatment is the use of second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, due to their improved toxicity profiles. These drugs are a great frontline option for most, if not all CLL patients,” said John N. Allan, associate professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in his presentation on frontline CLL treatments at the Great Debates and Updates Hematologic Malignancies Conference. “This is true even of older patients or those with comorbidities because this class of drug allows us to keep patients on treatment with excellent long-term outcomes.”

Results from the Alpine trial (NCT03734016), which included patients with and without high genomic risk, confirmed the superiority of the second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib (ZB) versus ibrutinib in terms of overall response rate 86.2% versus 75.5%, progression free survival 2-years after treatment 79.5% versus 67.3%, and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation 15.4% versus 22.2% respectively.

The SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333) demonstrated the effectiveness of ZB versus bendamustine + rituximab combination (BR) therapy in treatment-naive CLL / small lymphocytic leukemia patients with normal and high genomic risk. Overall 24-month progression free survival (PFS) was 85% in the ZB cohort vs. 69% in the BR cohort. This trend held true among high-risk subgroups like patients with an unmutated IgVH gene or 11q22.3 gene deletion.

Therapies known as “doublets” and “triplets” (which include a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor in addition to other drugs) are not FDA approved for frontline CLL treatment. Yet studies suggest that young patients who are better able to tolerate AEs or high-risk patients with a greater risk of relapse (even on monotherapy maintenance), may derive benefits from multidrug frontline treatment.

“With doublets and triplets, doctors add treatment intensity up front so that patients can have a fixed duration of therapy versus continuous indefinite therapy,” said Vu Nguyen MD, a hematologist at Oakland (Calif.) Medical Center. “This is encouraging because if you can have a fixed duration of treatment, patients can come off treatment agents and hopefully have a prolonged remission and normal lifespan without chronic therapy and side effects.”

The CAPTIVATE study confirmed this approach with 3 cycles of IB followed by 12 cycles of IB + venetoclax leading to a 24-month PFS rate of 94% in patients with high risk or relapse. “Furthermore, 95% of study participants patients less than 70 years old completed 12 months of combination treatment without major problems,” said Dr. Allan. He concluded his remarks by noting that “we need longer term data on the use of combination therapy for frontline CLL treatment to confirm if and when it should be used.”

Dr. Allan disclosed relationships with Adaptive Biotechnologies, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Epizyme, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Nguyen reported no disclosures.

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

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

Jean-philippe WALLET/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jean-philippe WALLET/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jean-philippe WALLET/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The vast majority of symptomatic breast conditions are benign, with the most common symptoms being palpable mass and breast pain. Clinicians, including primary care clinicians and gynecologists, play a crucial role by performing the initial assessment and subsequent therapies and referrals and serve as the mediator between the specialists and by being the patient’s spokesperson. It is therefore important for clinicians to be aware of the various possible causes of these breast symptoms, to know which imaging tests to order, and also to understand the indications for biopsies and surgical referral.

Common types of breast lumps: Imaging workup and management

Accounting for 8% of women who present with breast symptoms, breast lump is the second most common symptom after breast pain.¹ The positive likelihood ratio of finding breast cancer is highest among women with breast lumps compared with any other breast symptoms. Therefore, anxiety is related to this symptom, and a thorough evaluation is recommended.¹ Cysts, fibroadenoma, and fat necrosis are 3 common benign causes of breast lumps.²

In this section, we review clinical presentation, imaging workup, and management strategies for common types of breast lumps.

CASE 1 Woman with tender breast lump

A 45-year-old woman presents with a breast lump of 6 months’ duration that is associated with a change in size with the menstrual cycle and pain. Clinical examination reveals a 4 x 4.5–cm mass in the right breast in the retroareolar region, which is smooth with some tenderness on palpation.

Breast cyst

According to the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria for an adult woman 40 years of age or older who presents with a palpable breast mass, the initial imaging study is diagnostic mammography with or without digital tomosynthesis, usually followed by a directed ultrasound. If the mammogram is suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy, or in cases where the mammogram does not show an abnormality, the next recommended step is breast ultrasonography. Any suspicious findings on ultrasound or mammogram should be followed by an image guided biopsy. Ultrasonography also may be appropriate if the mammogram findings are benign or probably benign.

For an adult woman younger than age 30 who presents with a palpable breast mass, breast ultrasonography is the appropriate initial imaging study. If the ultrasound is suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy, then performing diagnostic mammography with or without digital tomosynthesis or ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of the mass are both considered appropriate. However, no further imaging is recommended if the ultrasound is benign, probably benign, or negative. Breast ultrasonography or mammography is appropriate as the initial imaging test for adult women aged 30 to 39 years who present with a palpable breast mass.^3,4

Approximately 50% of women after age 30 may develop fibrocystic breast disease, and 20% of them can present with pain or lump due to a macrocysts. Simple cysts must be distinguished from complex cysts with the help of ultrasound as the latter are associated with 23% to 31% increased risk of malignancy.

In this 45-year-old patient, the initial mammogram demonstrated a circumscribed mass underneath the area of palpable concern (FIGURE 1a, 1b). Targeted breast ultrasonography was performed for further assessment, which depicted the mass as a benign simple cyst (FIGURE 1c).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Continue to: CASE 2 Painless breast mass in a young woman...

CASE 2 Painless breast mass in a young woman

A 22-year-old woman presents with a 2-month history of breast lump, which is not associated with pain or nipple discharge. On examination, there is a 2 x 2–cm mass in the right breast at 12 o’clock, 2 cm from the nipple, which is mobile, smooth, and nontender on palpation.

Fibroadenoma

In this 22-year-old, the initial imaging of choice is breast ultrasonography. Breast ultrasonography can differentiate a cystic mass from a solid mass, and it does not involve radiation. Right breast targeted ultrasound showed a circumscribed oval homogeneous hypoechoic mass that is wider than tall (FIGURE 2). The patient desired surgical removal, and a pre-lumpectomy core needle biopsy revealed a fibroadenoma.

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Fibroadenoma is the most common benign tumor of the breast. It is most often encountered in premenopausal women. Patients present with a painless breast lump, which is smooth and mobile on palpation. Fibroadenoma can be followed expectantly with repeat ultrasound (to assess over time for growth) if it is small and asymptomatic. No further action is needed if it remains stable. If a patient desires surgical excision, a core needle biopsy is usually performed before lumpectomy.

Excisional biopsy or removal of the mass is recommended if the mass is greater than 3 or 4 cm, is symptomatic, or if there is an increase in size that raises clinical concern for phyllodes tumor. Imaging features that are concerning for phyllodes tumors are size greater than 3 cm, indistinct or microlobulated margins, and heterogeneous echo pattern.^7,8 In cases in which the imaging features are concerning for phyllodes tumor and a core needle biopsy is not definitive, wide surgical excision is recommended for definitive diagnosis.⁸

CASE 3 Patient develops breast mass post-surgery

A 45-year-old woman presents with a tender left breast mass that she noticed 2 months after breast reduction surgery. It has been increasing in size since. On clinical examination, a 4 x 4–cm mass is found at the surgical scar site, which is indurated on palpation and tender.

Fat necrosis

In this 45-year-old, the initial test of choice is diagnostic mammography, which showed a somewhat circumscribed area with fat under the palpable marker (FIGURE 3a). Breast ultrasonography was performed for further evaluation, which was inconclusive as the ultrasound showed ill-defined areas of mixed echogenicity (FIGURE 3b). Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) clearly demonstrated fat necrosis in the area of the palpable lump (FIGURE 3c).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Fat necrosis of the breast is an inflammatory process that is seen after breast trauma or surgery. It can present as an incidental mammogram finding or a palpable mass. The patient may give a history of trauma, breast reduction surgery, or breast cancer surgery followed by radiation treatment. On clinical examination, fat necrosis occasionally can present as a firm mass with skin retraction or swelling concerning for cancer. Imaging features are variable depending on the stage of fat necrosis and inflammation.^9-11

A mammogram may demonstrate a circumscribed fat-containing mass, an ill-defined mass, asymmetry or calcified oil cyst, and dystrophic calcifications. On ultrasound, fat necrosis can appear as anechoic or hypoechoic or as a complicated cyst or a mixed cystic, solid mass. MRI demonstrates a circumscribed or irregular fat-containing mass, with or without enhancement, and architectural distortion.

When the imaging features are clearly benign—for example, a circumscribed fat-containing mass on mammogram or on ultrasound or, on MRI, marked hypointensity of fat in the center of a circumscribed mass when compared with surrounding fat (keyhole sign)—no further follow-up is needed. When the imaging features are indeterminate, however, a short-interval follow-up can be considered. In cases with irregular fat-containing mass with enhancement, core needle biopsy is indicated to exclude cancer. If the workup remains inconclusive and the level of clinical suspicion is high, surgical excision can be performed for a definitive diagnosis.¹²

Continue to: Investigating breast pain: Imaging workup and management...

Investigating breast pain: Imaging workup and management

Breast pain, or mastalgia, is the most common concern of women presenting to a breast clinic and accounts for approximately half of such encounters.¹³ Causes of breast pain include hormonal changes, fibrocystic changes, musculoskeletal causes (such as costochondritis), lack of support, infection, and injury. While mastalgia often causes patient concern, the risk of malignancy in a woman presenting with breast pain alone is low. Still, it is essential to rule out other findings suspicious for cancer (mass, skin changes, or nipple discharge) with a thorough history and breast examination.

In this section, we review clinical presentation, imaging workup, and management for breast pain.

CASE 4 Woman with noncyclic breast pain

A 26-year-old woman presents to the clinic with mastalgia. The pain is noncyclic and primarily located in the upper outer quadrant of her left breast. There is no history of breast cancer in her family. She has no suspicious findings on the breast examination.

Mastalgia

The test of choice for this 26-year-old with focal left breast pain is targeted breast ultrasound. The patient’s ultrasound image showed no suspicious findings or solid or cystic mass (FIGURE 4).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Two important characteristics of breast pain are whether it is noncyclical and whether it is focal. According to the American College of Radiology, no breast imaging is recommended for clinically insignificant cyclical, nonfocal (greater than 1 quadrant)/diffuse pain, as this type of mastalgia is not associated with malignancy.¹⁴

For patients age 40 or older, if they are not up to date with their annual screening mammogram, then a mammogram should be performed. An imaging workup is warranted for clinically significant mastalgia that is noncyclical and focal. Even then, no malignancy is identified in most patients with clinically significant mastalgia; in patients with breast pain as their only symptom, the prevalence of breast cancer is 0% to 3.0%.^15-19

The initial imaging modality differs by patient age: younger than 30 years, ultrasonography; between 30 and 40 years, mammography or ultrasonography; and older than 40 years, mammography first followed by ultrasonography.¹⁴

Treatment of breast pain is primarily symptomatic, and evidence for specific treatments is generally lacking. Cyclical breast pain resolves spontaneously in 20% to 30% of women, while noncyclical pain responds poorly to treatment but resolves spontaneously in half of women.²⁰ Reassurance is important and wearing a supportive bra often can alleviate breast pain. In addition, reducing caffeine intake can be helpful.

As a first-line treatment, both topical (diclofenac) and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs effectively can relieve breast pain. Supplements and herbal remedies (for example, evening primrose oil, vitamin E, flaxseed) have varying effectiveness and are of questionable benefit as few have trials to support their effectiveness.⁴ Danazol and tamoxifen have been shown to have some benefits but they also have adverse effects.²⁰ Surgery does not play a role in the treatment of mastalgia.

CASE 5 Breastfeeding woman with breast pain

A 27-year-old postpartum woman presents with concerns for redness and pain in the upper inner left breast. She has been breastfeeding for the past few months. Breast examination demonstrates a 5-cm area of erythema and warmth but no fluctuance or masses.

Lactational mastitis

Targeted ultrasonography is the test of choice for this 27-year-old patient with focal breast pain, and the imaging revealed edema of subcutaneous tissues and ill-defined hypoechoic areas, likely inflamed fat lobules (FIGURE 5). These findings suggest uncomplicated lactational mastitis, which can be treated with antibiotics. Generally, the mastitis will improve within days of starting the antibiotics; if it does not improve, repeat examination and ultrasound should be performed to look for formation of an abscess that may require aspiration.

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Continue to: CASE 6 Woman with painful periareolar mass...

A 42-year-old perimenopausal woman describes having pain near the nipple of her right breast. She is a smoker and has no history of breast cancer in her family. Examination demonstrates a palpable, erythematous, painful, 3-cm periareolar fluctuant mass.

Nonpuerperal periareolar abscess

Appropriate initial imaging for this 42-year-old patient with focal pain is a diagnostic mammogram, which showed skin thickening and a retroareolar mass (FIGURE 6a). Further evaluation with targeted ultrasound showed a thick-walled anechoic collection with echoes compatible with an abscess (FIGURE 6b).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Mammographic findings in a patient with mastitis may be normal or demonstrate skin and trabecular thickening. Ultrasound imaging may show dilated ducts and heterogeneous tissue secondary to inflammation and edema without a discrete fluid collection. In cases with breast abscess, in addition to the mammographic findings described above, a mass, or an asymmetry, may be seen, most commonly in a subareolar location. On ultrasound, a hypoechoic collection with mobile debris, no internal flow on Doppler, and thick hypervascular walls can be seen with abscess, occasionally giving the appearance of a complicated cyst or a mixed cystic, solid mass.

The most important differential for mastitis is inflammatory breast cancer. Most cancers appear solid but can have central necrosis, mimicking a complicated cystic mass on ultrasound. The location for mastitis or abscess is most frequently subareolar. The presence of microcalcifications in a mass indicates the possibility of cancer.

Contrast-enhanced MRI can be helpful to differentiate between infection and cancer, with cancers showing initial early enhancement and washout kinetics compared with infected collections that show no enhancement or peripheral enhancement with a plateau or persistent enhancement curves. When clinical and imaging findings are unchanged after treatment of mastitis and abscesses, a core needle biopsy should be performed.^21,22

There are 2 categories of mastitis and breast abscess: lactational and nonpuerperal (all mastitis that occurs outside the lactational period). The World Health Organization definition of puerperal mastitis includes pain, local redness, warmth and swelling of the breast (usually unilateral), fever, and malaise.⁴ Concerning etiology, epithelial lesions in the nipple area caused by breastfeeding can allow pathogens to enter and cause infection. The most common microorganism is Staphylococcus aureus.⁴ Continued emptying of the breast is important, combined with early antibiotic therapy (dicloxacillin is often the first line; if the patient is penicillin allergic, use a macrolide such as clindamycin). If no improvement is seen in 48 to 72 hours, imaging should be performed.

In most cases, continuation of breastfeeding is possible. If mastitis has evolved into an abscess in a lactating woman, it can be aspirated under ultrasound guidance. Incision and drainage should be avoided unless the abscess persists after multiple aspiration attempts, it is large, or if the overlying skin is thin or otherwise appears nonviable.

Nonpuerperal mastitis includes peripheral, periductal, and idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM). Peripheral mastitis behaves like infections/abscesses in other soft tissues, responds well to treatment (antibiotics and percutaneous drainage), and is less likely to recur than periductal mastitis and IGM.^21,23

Periductal mastitis and abscess, also known as Zuska disease, has a pathogenesis distinct from other forms of mastitis. Squamous metaplasia of the usual cuboidal epithelium of the breast ducts leads to keratin plugging that can cause infection.²³ Risk factors include obesity, smoking, and macromastia. The typical presentation of Zuska disease is a woman with a history of chronic smoking and/or a congenital cleft in the central nipple.²³ Periareolar signs of inflammation (redness, swelling, warmth) may be accompanied by an abscess. These can recur and lead to chronic fistula formation, especially if there is a history of intervention (such as aspiration, incision, and drainage).

Treatment of Zuska disease includes symptom relief and antibiotics. If S aureus is present, infection with methicillin-resistant S aureus is likely, and treatment with clindamycin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid is preferred. If abscess is present, aspiration (preferred, often under ultrasound guidance) or incision and drainage (if the skin is compromised) may be required. If disease is recurrent or associated with a chronically draining fistula, surgical intervention may be warranted, in which resolution requires removing the keratin-plugged ducts in and immediately below the central core of the nipple. Given the association between Zuska disease and smoking, cessation should be encouraged, although there is no guarantee that this will resolve the issue.²³

Continue to: CASE 7 Patient with breast pain and swelling...

CASE 7 Patient with breast pain and swelling

A 39-year-old woman presents with left breast swelling and pain of 1 month’s duration. On examination, there is a 6-cm area of edema, induration, and erythema.

Granulomatous mastitis

A diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound demonstrated an ill-defined hypoechoic mass (FIGURE 7a). Ultrasound-guided biopsy was performed, which showed granulomatous mastitis, negative for fungus and acid-fast bacilli. The patient was treated with prednisone and gradually improved (FIGURE 7b).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Granulomatous mastitis (GM) is a rare benign inflammatory process, with etiologies that include fungal infections, tuberculosis, Wegener granulomatosis, sarcoidosis, and idiopathic causes. Imaging can be nonspecific and show variable features. Mammograms can appear normal or show asymmetry or mass and skin thickening. Ultrasound can show heterogeneous parenchyma, ill-defined hypoechoic collection, or a mass with margins that can be circumscribed or indistinct or with tubular extensions, with or without overlying skin thickening, fistulas, and reactive lymph nodes.²⁴

In this clinical setting, the differential diagnosis includes infectious mastitis, inflammatory breast cancer, foreign body injection granulomas, and diabetic mastopathy. Treatment involves drainage and fluid culture if there is a collection on imaging. A core biopsy is performed if imaging demonstrates a solid mass or fluid culture is negative and symptoms persist or recur. Oral steroids represent the mainstay of treatment if a core biopsy shows GM. However, immunosuppressants, including methotrexate, and surgery are options if initial treatment is not helpful.^25,26

Conclusion

Breast symptoms are common reasons for patient visits to obstetricians and gynecologists. With a good understanding of the various symptomatic breast diseases and conditions, and by having a close collaboration with radiologists and breast surgeons, clinicians can provide excellent care to these patients and thereby improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. ●

The vast majority of symptomatic breast conditions are benign, with the most common symptoms being palpable mass and breast pain. Clinicians, including primary care clinicians and gynecologists, play a crucial role by performing the initial assessment and subsequent therapies and referrals and serve as the mediator between the specialists and by being the patient’s spokesperson. It is therefore important for clinicians to be aware of the various possible causes of these breast symptoms, to know which imaging tests to order, and also to understand the indications for biopsies and surgical referral.

Common types of breast lumps: Imaging workup and management

Accounting for 8% of women who present with breast symptoms, breast lump is the second most common symptom after breast pain.¹ The positive likelihood ratio of finding breast cancer is highest among women with breast lumps compared with any other breast symptoms. Therefore, anxiety is related to this symptom, and a thorough evaluation is recommended.¹ Cysts, fibroadenoma, and fat necrosis are 3 common benign causes of breast lumps.²

In this section, we review clinical presentation, imaging workup, and management strategies for common types of breast lumps.

CASE 1 Woman with tender breast lump

A 45-year-old woman presents with a breast lump of 6 months’ duration that is associated with a change in size with the menstrual cycle and pain. Clinical examination reveals a 4 x 4.5–cm mass in the right breast in the retroareolar region, which is smooth with some tenderness on palpation.

Breast cyst

According to the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria for an adult woman 40 years of age or older who presents with a palpable breast mass, the initial imaging study is diagnostic mammography with or without digital tomosynthesis, usually followed by a directed ultrasound. If the mammogram is suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy, or in cases where the mammogram does not show an abnormality, the next recommended step is breast ultrasonography. Any suspicious findings on ultrasound or mammogram should be followed by an image guided biopsy. Ultrasonography also may be appropriate if the mammogram findings are benign or probably benign.

For an adult woman younger than age 30 who presents with a palpable breast mass, breast ultrasonography is the appropriate initial imaging study. If the ultrasound is suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy, then performing diagnostic mammography with or without digital tomosynthesis or ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of the mass are both considered appropriate. However, no further imaging is recommended if the ultrasound is benign, probably benign, or negative. Breast ultrasonography or mammography is appropriate as the initial imaging test for adult women aged 30 to 39 years who present with a palpable breast mass.^3,4

Approximately 50% of women after age 30 may develop fibrocystic breast disease, and 20% of them can present with pain or lump due to a macrocysts. Simple cysts must be distinguished from complex cysts with the help of ultrasound as the latter are associated with 23% to 31% increased risk of malignancy.

In this 45-year-old patient, the initial mammogram demonstrated a circumscribed mass underneath the area of palpable concern (FIGURE 1a, 1b). Targeted breast ultrasonography was performed for further assessment, which depicted the mass as a benign simple cyst (FIGURE 1c).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Continue to: CASE 2 Painless breast mass in a young woman...

CASE 2 Painless breast mass in a young woman

A 22-year-old woman presents with a 2-month history of breast lump, which is not associated with pain or nipple discharge. On examination, there is a 2 x 2–cm mass in the right breast at 12 o’clock, 2 cm from the nipple, which is mobile, smooth, and nontender on palpation.

Fibroadenoma

In this 22-year-old, the initial imaging of choice is breast ultrasonography. Breast ultrasonography can differentiate a cystic mass from a solid mass, and it does not involve radiation. Right breast targeted ultrasound showed a circumscribed oval homogeneous hypoechoic mass that is wider than tall (FIGURE 2). The patient desired surgical removal, and a pre-lumpectomy core needle biopsy revealed a fibroadenoma.

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Fibroadenoma is the most common benign tumor of the breast. It is most often encountered in premenopausal women. Patients present with a painless breast lump, which is smooth and mobile on palpation. Fibroadenoma can be followed expectantly with repeat ultrasound (to assess over time for growth) if it is small and asymptomatic. No further action is needed if it remains stable. If a patient desires surgical excision, a core needle biopsy is usually performed before lumpectomy.

Excisional biopsy or removal of the mass is recommended if the mass is greater than 3 or 4 cm, is symptomatic, or if there is an increase in size that raises clinical concern for phyllodes tumor. Imaging features that are concerning for phyllodes tumors are size greater than 3 cm, indistinct or microlobulated margins, and heterogeneous echo pattern.^7,8 In cases in which the imaging features are concerning for phyllodes tumor and a core needle biopsy is not definitive, wide surgical excision is recommended for definitive diagnosis.⁸

CASE 3 Patient develops breast mass post-surgery

A 45-year-old woman presents with a tender left breast mass that she noticed 2 months after breast reduction surgery. It has been increasing in size since. On clinical examination, a 4 x 4–cm mass is found at the surgical scar site, which is indurated on palpation and tender.

Fat necrosis

In this 45-year-old, the initial test of choice is diagnostic mammography, which showed a somewhat circumscribed area with fat under the palpable marker (FIGURE 3a). Breast ultrasonography was performed for further evaluation, which was inconclusive as the ultrasound showed ill-defined areas of mixed echogenicity (FIGURE 3b). Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) clearly demonstrated fat necrosis in the area of the palpable lump (FIGURE 3c).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Fat necrosis of the breast is an inflammatory process that is seen after breast trauma or surgery. It can present as an incidental mammogram finding or a palpable mass. The patient may give a history of trauma, breast reduction surgery, or breast cancer surgery followed by radiation treatment. On clinical examination, fat necrosis occasionally can present as a firm mass with skin retraction or swelling concerning for cancer. Imaging features are variable depending on the stage of fat necrosis and inflammation.^9-11

A mammogram may demonstrate a circumscribed fat-containing mass, an ill-defined mass, asymmetry or calcified oil cyst, and dystrophic calcifications. On ultrasound, fat necrosis can appear as anechoic or hypoechoic or as a complicated cyst or a mixed cystic, solid mass. MRI demonstrates a circumscribed or irregular fat-containing mass, with or without enhancement, and architectural distortion.

When the imaging features are clearly benign—for example, a circumscribed fat-containing mass on mammogram or on ultrasound or, on MRI, marked hypointensity of fat in the center of a circumscribed mass when compared with surrounding fat (keyhole sign)—no further follow-up is needed. When the imaging features are indeterminate, however, a short-interval follow-up can be considered. In cases with irregular fat-containing mass with enhancement, core needle biopsy is indicated to exclude cancer. If the workup remains inconclusive and the level of clinical suspicion is high, surgical excision can be performed for a definitive diagnosis.¹²

Continue to: Investigating breast pain: Imaging workup and management...

Investigating breast pain: Imaging workup and management

Breast pain, or mastalgia, is the most common concern of women presenting to a breast clinic and accounts for approximately half of such encounters.¹³ Causes of breast pain include hormonal changes, fibrocystic changes, musculoskeletal causes (such as costochondritis), lack of support, infection, and injury. While mastalgia often causes patient concern, the risk of malignancy in a woman presenting with breast pain alone is low. Still, it is essential to rule out other findings suspicious for cancer (mass, skin changes, or nipple discharge) with a thorough history and breast examination.

In this section, we review clinical presentation, imaging workup, and management for breast pain.

CASE 4 Woman with noncyclic breast pain

A 26-year-old woman presents to the clinic with mastalgia. The pain is noncyclic and primarily located in the upper outer quadrant of her left breast. There is no history of breast cancer in her family. She has no suspicious findings on the breast examination.

Mastalgia

The test of choice for this 26-year-old with focal left breast pain is targeted breast ultrasound. The patient’s ultrasound image showed no suspicious findings or solid or cystic mass (FIGURE 4).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Two important characteristics of breast pain are whether it is noncyclical and whether it is focal. According to the American College of Radiology, no breast imaging is recommended for clinically insignificant cyclical, nonfocal (greater than 1 quadrant)/diffuse pain, as this type of mastalgia is not associated with malignancy.¹⁴

For patients age 40 or older, if they are not up to date with their annual screening mammogram, then a mammogram should be performed. An imaging workup is warranted for clinically significant mastalgia that is noncyclical and focal. Even then, no malignancy is identified in most patients with clinically significant mastalgia; in patients with breast pain as their only symptom, the prevalence of breast cancer is 0% to 3.0%.^15-19

The initial imaging modality differs by patient age: younger than 30 years, ultrasonography; between 30 and 40 years, mammography or ultrasonography; and older than 40 years, mammography first followed by ultrasonography.¹⁴

Treatment of breast pain is primarily symptomatic, and evidence for specific treatments is generally lacking. Cyclical breast pain resolves spontaneously in 20% to 30% of women, while noncyclical pain responds poorly to treatment but resolves spontaneously in half of women.²⁰ Reassurance is important and wearing a supportive bra often can alleviate breast pain. In addition, reducing caffeine intake can be helpful.

As a first-line treatment, both topical (diclofenac) and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs effectively can relieve breast pain. Supplements and herbal remedies (for example, evening primrose oil, vitamin E, flaxseed) have varying effectiveness and are of questionable benefit as few have trials to support their effectiveness.⁴ Danazol and tamoxifen have been shown to have some benefits but they also have adverse effects.²⁰ Surgery does not play a role in the treatment of mastalgia.

CASE 5 Breastfeeding woman with breast pain

A 27-year-old postpartum woman presents with concerns for redness and pain in the upper inner left breast. She has been breastfeeding for the past few months. Breast examination demonstrates a 5-cm area of erythema and warmth but no fluctuance or masses.

Lactational mastitis

Targeted ultrasonography is the test of choice for this 27-year-old patient with focal breast pain, and the imaging revealed edema of subcutaneous tissues and ill-defined hypoechoic areas, likely inflamed fat lobules (FIGURE 5). These findings suggest uncomplicated lactational mastitis, which can be treated with antibiotics. Generally, the mastitis will improve within days of starting the antibiotics; if it does not improve, repeat examination and ultrasound should be performed to look for formation of an abscess that may require aspiration.

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Continue to: CASE 6 Woman with painful periareolar mass...

A 42-year-old perimenopausal woman describes having pain near the nipple of her right breast. She is a smoker and has no history of breast cancer in her family. Examination demonstrates a palpable, erythematous, painful, 3-cm periareolar fluctuant mass.

Nonpuerperal periareolar abscess

Appropriate initial imaging for this 42-year-old patient with focal pain is a diagnostic mammogram, which showed skin thickening and a retroareolar mass (FIGURE 6a). Further evaluation with targeted ultrasound showed a thick-walled anechoic collection with echoes compatible with an abscess (FIGURE 6b).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Mammographic findings in a patient with mastitis may be normal or demonstrate skin and trabecular thickening. Ultrasound imaging may show dilated ducts and heterogeneous tissue secondary to inflammation and edema without a discrete fluid collection. In cases with breast abscess, in addition to the mammographic findings described above, a mass, or an asymmetry, may be seen, most commonly in a subareolar location. On ultrasound, a hypoechoic collection with mobile debris, no internal flow on Doppler, and thick hypervascular walls can be seen with abscess, occasionally giving the appearance of a complicated cyst or a mixed cystic, solid mass.

The most important differential for mastitis is inflammatory breast cancer. Most cancers appear solid but can have central necrosis, mimicking a complicated cystic mass on ultrasound. The location for mastitis or abscess is most frequently subareolar. The presence of microcalcifications in a mass indicates the possibility of cancer.

Contrast-enhanced MRI can be helpful to differentiate between infection and cancer, with cancers showing initial early enhancement and washout kinetics compared with infected collections that show no enhancement or peripheral enhancement with a plateau or persistent enhancement curves. When clinical and imaging findings are unchanged after treatment of mastitis and abscesses, a core needle biopsy should be performed.^21,22

There are 2 categories of mastitis and breast abscess: lactational and nonpuerperal (all mastitis that occurs outside the lactational period). The World Health Organization definition of puerperal mastitis includes pain, local redness, warmth and swelling of the breast (usually unilateral), fever, and malaise.⁴ Concerning etiology, epithelial lesions in the nipple area caused by breastfeeding can allow pathogens to enter and cause infection. The most common microorganism is Staphylococcus aureus.⁴ Continued emptying of the breast is important, combined with early antibiotic therapy (dicloxacillin is often the first line; if the patient is penicillin allergic, use a macrolide such as clindamycin). If no improvement is seen in 48 to 72 hours, imaging should be performed.

In most cases, continuation of breastfeeding is possible. If mastitis has evolved into an abscess in a lactating woman, it can be aspirated under ultrasound guidance. Incision and drainage should be avoided unless the abscess persists after multiple aspiration attempts, it is large, or if the overlying skin is thin or otherwise appears nonviable.

Nonpuerperal mastitis includes peripheral, periductal, and idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM). Peripheral mastitis behaves like infections/abscesses in other soft tissues, responds well to treatment (antibiotics and percutaneous drainage), and is less likely to recur than periductal mastitis and IGM.^21,23

Periductal mastitis and abscess, also known as Zuska disease, has a pathogenesis distinct from other forms of mastitis. Squamous metaplasia of the usual cuboidal epithelium of the breast ducts leads to keratin plugging that can cause infection.²³ Risk factors include obesity, smoking, and macromastia. The typical presentation of Zuska disease is a woman with a history of chronic smoking and/or a congenital cleft in the central nipple.²³ Periareolar signs of inflammation (redness, swelling, warmth) may be accompanied by an abscess. These can recur and lead to chronic fistula formation, especially if there is a history of intervention (such as aspiration, incision, and drainage).

Treatment of Zuska disease includes symptom relief and antibiotics. If S aureus is present, infection with methicillin-resistant S aureus is likely, and treatment with clindamycin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid is preferred. If abscess is present, aspiration (preferred, often under ultrasound guidance) or incision and drainage (if the skin is compromised) may be required. If disease is recurrent or associated with a chronically draining fistula, surgical intervention may be warranted, in which resolution requires removing the keratin-plugged ducts in and immediately below the central core of the nipple. Given the association between Zuska disease and smoking, cessation should be encouraged, although there is no guarantee that this will resolve the issue.²³

Continue to: CASE 7 Patient with breast pain and swelling...

CASE 7 Patient with breast pain and swelling

A 39-year-old woman presents with left breast swelling and pain of 1 month’s duration. On examination, there is a 6-cm area of edema, induration, and erythema.

Granulomatous mastitis

A diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound demonstrated an ill-defined hypoechoic mass (FIGURE 7a). Ultrasound-guided biopsy was performed, which showed granulomatous mastitis, negative for fungus and acid-fast bacilli. The patient was treated with prednisone and gradually improved (FIGURE 7b).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Granulomatous mastitis (GM) is a rare benign inflammatory process, with etiologies that include fungal infections, tuberculosis, Wegener granulomatosis, sarcoidosis, and idiopathic causes. Imaging can be nonspecific and show variable features. Mammograms can appear normal or show asymmetry or mass and skin thickening. Ultrasound can show heterogeneous parenchyma, ill-defined hypoechoic collection, or a mass with margins that can be circumscribed or indistinct or with tubular extensions, with or without overlying skin thickening, fistulas, and reactive lymph nodes.²⁴

In this clinical setting, the differential diagnosis includes infectious mastitis, inflammatory breast cancer, foreign body injection granulomas, and diabetic mastopathy. Treatment involves drainage and fluid culture if there is a collection on imaging. A core biopsy is performed if imaging demonstrates a solid mass or fluid culture is negative and symptoms persist or recur. Oral steroids represent the mainstay of treatment if a core biopsy shows GM. However, immunosuppressants, including methotrexate, and surgery are options if initial treatment is not helpful.^25,26

Conclusion

Breast symptoms are common reasons for patient visits to obstetricians and gynecologists. With a good understanding of the various symptomatic breast diseases and conditions, and by having a close collaboration with radiologists and breast surgeons, clinicians can provide excellent care to these patients and thereby improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. ●

The vast majority of symptomatic breast conditions are benign, with the most common symptoms being palpable mass and breast pain. Clinicians, including primary care clinicians and gynecologists, play a crucial role by performing the initial assessment and subsequent therapies and referrals and serve as the mediator between the specialists and by being the patient’s spokesperson. It is therefore important for clinicians to be aware of the various possible causes of these breast symptoms, to know which imaging tests to order, and also to understand the indications for biopsies and surgical referral.

Common types of breast lumps: Imaging workup and management

Accounting for 8% of women who present with breast symptoms, breast lump is the second most common symptom after breast pain.¹ The positive likelihood ratio of finding breast cancer is highest among women with breast lumps compared with any other breast symptoms. Therefore, anxiety is related to this symptom, and a thorough evaluation is recommended.¹ Cysts, fibroadenoma, and fat necrosis are 3 common benign causes of breast lumps.²

In this section, we review clinical presentation, imaging workup, and management strategies for common types of breast lumps.

CASE 1 Woman with tender breast lump

A 45-year-old woman presents with a breast lump of 6 months’ duration that is associated with a change in size with the menstrual cycle and pain. Clinical examination reveals a 4 x 4.5–cm mass in the right breast in the retroareolar region, which is smooth with some tenderness on palpation.

Breast cyst

According to the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria for an adult woman 40 years of age or older who presents with a palpable breast mass, the initial imaging study is diagnostic mammography with or without digital tomosynthesis, usually followed by a directed ultrasound. If the mammogram is suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy, or in cases where the mammogram does not show an abnormality, the next recommended step is breast ultrasonography. Any suspicious findings on ultrasound or mammogram should be followed by an image guided biopsy. Ultrasonography also may be appropriate if the mammogram findings are benign or probably benign.

For an adult woman younger than age 30 who presents with a palpable breast mass, breast ultrasonography is the appropriate initial imaging study. If the ultrasound is suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy, then performing diagnostic mammography with or without digital tomosynthesis or ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of the mass are both considered appropriate. However, no further imaging is recommended if the ultrasound is benign, probably benign, or negative. Breast ultrasonography or mammography is appropriate as the initial imaging test for adult women aged 30 to 39 years who present with a palpable breast mass.^3,4

Approximately 50% of women after age 30 may develop fibrocystic breast disease, and 20% of them can present with pain or lump due to a macrocysts. Simple cysts must be distinguished from complex cysts with the help of ultrasound as the latter are associated with 23% to 31% increased risk of malignancy.

In this 45-year-old patient, the initial mammogram demonstrated a circumscribed mass underneath the area of palpable concern (FIGURE 1a, 1b). Targeted breast ultrasonography was performed for further assessment, which depicted the mass as a benign simple cyst (FIGURE 1c).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Continue to: CASE 2 Painless breast mass in a young woman...

CASE 2 Painless breast mass in a young woman

A 22-year-old woman presents with a 2-month history of breast lump, which is not associated with pain or nipple discharge. On examination, there is a 2 x 2–cm mass in the right breast at 12 o’clock, 2 cm from the nipple, which is mobile, smooth, and nontender on palpation.

Fibroadenoma

In this 22-year-old, the initial imaging of choice is breast ultrasonography. Breast ultrasonography can differentiate a cystic mass from a solid mass, and it does not involve radiation. Right breast targeted ultrasound showed a circumscribed oval homogeneous hypoechoic mass that is wider than tall (FIGURE 2). The patient desired surgical removal, and a pre-lumpectomy core needle biopsy revealed a fibroadenoma.

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Fibroadenoma is the most common benign tumor of the breast. It is most often encountered in premenopausal women. Patients present with a painless breast lump, which is smooth and mobile on palpation. Fibroadenoma can be followed expectantly with repeat ultrasound (to assess over time for growth) if it is small and asymptomatic. No further action is needed if it remains stable. If a patient desires surgical excision, a core needle biopsy is usually performed before lumpectomy.

Excisional biopsy or removal of the mass is recommended if the mass is greater than 3 or 4 cm, is symptomatic, or if there is an increase in size that raises clinical concern for phyllodes tumor. Imaging features that are concerning for phyllodes tumors are size greater than 3 cm, indistinct or microlobulated margins, and heterogeneous echo pattern.^7,8 In cases in which the imaging features are concerning for phyllodes tumor and a core needle biopsy is not definitive, wide surgical excision is recommended for definitive diagnosis.⁸

CASE 3 Patient develops breast mass post-surgery

A 45-year-old woman presents with a tender left breast mass that she noticed 2 months after breast reduction surgery. It has been increasing in size since. On clinical examination, a 4 x 4–cm mass is found at the surgical scar site, which is indurated on palpation and tender.

Fat necrosis

In this 45-year-old, the initial test of choice is diagnostic mammography, which showed a somewhat circumscribed area with fat under the palpable marker (FIGURE 3a). Breast ultrasonography was performed for further evaluation, which was inconclusive as the ultrasound showed ill-defined areas of mixed echogenicity (FIGURE 3b). Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) clearly demonstrated fat necrosis in the area of the palpable lump (FIGURE 3c).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Fat necrosis of the breast is an inflammatory process that is seen after breast trauma or surgery. It can present as an incidental mammogram finding or a palpable mass. The patient may give a history of trauma, breast reduction surgery, or breast cancer surgery followed by radiation treatment. On clinical examination, fat necrosis occasionally can present as a firm mass with skin retraction or swelling concerning for cancer. Imaging features are variable depending on the stage of fat necrosis and inflammation.^9-11

A mammogram may demonstrate a circumscribed fat-containing mass, an ill-defined mass, asymmetry or calcified oil cyst, and dystrophic calcifications. On ultrasound, fat necrosis can appear as anechoic or hypoechoic or as a complicated cyst or a mixed cystic, solid mass. MRI demonstrates a circumscribed or irregular fat-containing mass, with or without enhancement, and architectural distortion.

When the imaging features are clearly benign—for example, a circumscribed fat-containing mass on mammogram or on ultrasound or, on MRI, marked hypointensity of fat in the center of a circumscribed mass when compared with surrounding fat (keyhole sign)—no further follow-up is needed. When the imaging features are indeterminate, however, a short-interval follow-up can be considered. In cases with irregular fat-containing mass with enhancement, core needle biopsy is indicated to exclude cancer. If the workup remains inconclusive and the level of clinical suspicion is high, surgical excision can be performed for a definitive diagnosis.¹²

Continue to: Investigating breast pain: Imaging workup and management...

Investigating breast pain: Imaging workup and management

Breast pain, or mastalgia, is the most common concern of women presenting to a breast clinic and accounts for approximately half of such encounters.¹³ Causes of breast pain include hormonal changes, fibrocystic changes, musculoskeletal causes (such as costochondritis), lack of support, infection, and injury. While mastalgia often causes patient concern, the risk of malignancy in a woman presenting with breast pain alone is low. Still, it is essential to rule out other findings suspicious for cancer (mass, skin changes, or nipple discharge) with a thorough history and breast examination.

In this section, we review clinical presentation, imaging workup, and management for breast pain.

CASE 4 Woman with noncyclic breast pain

A 26-year-old woman presents to the clinic with mastalgia. The pain is noncyclic and primarily located in the upper outer quadrant of her left breast. There is no history of breast cancer in her family. She has no suspicious findings on the breast examination.

Mastalgia

The test of choice for this 26-year-old with focal left breast pain is targeted breast ultrasound. The patient’s ultrasound image showed no suspicious findings or solid or cystic mass (FIGURE 4).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Two important characteristics of breast pain are whether it is noncyclical and whether it is focal. According to the American College of Radiology, no breast imaging is recommended for clinically insignificant cyclical, nonfocal (greater than 1 quadrant)/diffuse pain, as this type of mastalgia is not associated with malignancy.¹⁴

For patients age 40 or older, if they are not up to date with their annual screening mammogram, then a mammogram should be performed. An imaging workup is warranted for clinically significant mastalgia that is noncyclical and focal. Even then, no malignancy is identified in most patients with clinically significant mastalgia; in patients with breast pain as their only symptom, the prevalence of breast cancer is 0% to 3.0%.^15-19

The initial imaging modality differs by patient age: younger than 30 years, ultrasonography; between 30 and 40 years, mammography or ultrasonography; and older than 40 years, mammography first followed by ultrasonography.¹⁴

Treatment of breast pain is primarily symptomatic, and evidence for specific treatments is generally lacking. Cyclical breast pain resolves spontaneously in 20% to 30% of women, while noncyclical pain responds poorly to treatment but resolves spontaneously in half of women.²⁰ Reassurance is important and wearing a supportive bra often can alleviate breast pain. In addition, reducing caffeine intake can be helpful.

As a first-line treatment, both topical (diclofenac) and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs effectively can relieve breast pain. Supplements and herbal remedies (for example, evening primrose oil, vitamin E, flaxseed) have varying effectiveness and are of questionable benefit as few have trials to support their effectiveness.⁴ Danazol and tamoxifen have been shown to have some benefits but they also have adverse effects.²⁰ Surgery does not play a role in the treatment of mastalgia.

CASE 5 Breastfeeding woman with breast pain

A 27-year-old postpartum woman presents with concerns for redness and pain in the upper inner left breast. She has been breastfeeding for the past few months. Breast examination demonstrates a 5-cm area of erythema and warmth but no fluctuance or masses.

Lactational mastitis

Targeted ultrasonography is the test of choice for this 27-year-old patient with focal breast pain, and the imaging revealed edema of subcutaneous tissues and ill-defined hypoechoic areas, likely inflamed fat lobules (FIGURE 5). These findings suggest uncomplicated lactational mastitis, which can be treated with antibiotics. Generally, the mastitis will improve within days of starting the antibiotics; if it does not improve, repeat examination and ultrasound should be performed to look for formation of an abscess that may require aspiration.

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Continue to: CASE 6 Woman with painful periareolar mass...

A 42-year-old perimenopausal woman describes having pain near the nipple of her right breast. She is a smoker and has no history of breast cancer in her family. Examination demonstrates a palpable, erythematous, painful, 3-cm periareolar fluctuant mass.

Nonpuerperal periareolar abscess

Appropriate initial imaging for this 42-year-old patient with focal pain is a diagnostic mammogram, which showed skin thickening and a retroareolar mass (FIGURE 6a). Further evaluation with targeted ultrasound showed a thick-walled anechoic collection with echoes compatible with an abscess (FIGURE 6b).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Mammographic findings in a patient with mastitis may be normal or demonstrate skin and trabecular thickening. Ultrasound imaging may show dilated ducts and heterogeneous tissue secondary to inflammation and edema without a discrete fluid collection. In cases with breast abscess, in addition to the mammographic findings described above, a mass, or an asymmetry, may be seen, most commonly in a subareolar location. On ultrasound, a hypoechoic collection with mobile debris, no internal flow on Doppler, and thick hypervascular walls can be seen with abscess, occasionally giving the appearance of a complicated cyst or a mixed cystic, solid mass.

The most important differential for mastitis is inflammatory breast cancer. Most cancers appear solid but can have central necrosis, mimicking a complicated cystic mass on ultrasound. The location for mastitis or abscess is most frequently subareolar. The presence of microcalcifications in a mass indicates the possibility of cancer.

Contrast-enhanced MRI can be helpful to differentiate between infection and cancer, with cancers showing initial early enhancement and washout kinetics compared with infected collections that show no enhancement or peripheral enhancement with a plateau or persistent enhancement curves. When clinical and imaging findings are unchanged after treatment of mastitis and abscesses, a core needle biopsy should be performed.^21,22

There are 2 categories of mastitis and breast abscess: lactational and nonpuerperal (all mastitis that occurs outside the lactational period). The World Health Organization definition of puerperal mastitis includes pain, local redness, warmth and swelling of the breast (usually unilateral), fever, and malaise.⁴ Concerning etiology, epithelial lesions in the nipple area caused by breastfeeding can allow pathogens to enter and cause infection. The most common microorganism is Staphylococcus aureus.⁴ Continued emptying of the breast is important, combined with early antibiotic therapy (dicloxacillin is often the first line; if the patient is penicillin allergic, use a macrolide such as clindamycin). If no improvement is seen in 48 to 72 hours, imaging should be performed.

In most cases, continuation of breastfeeding is possible. If mastitis has evolved into an abscess in a lactating woman, it can be aspirated under ultrasound guidance. Incision and drainage should be avoided unless the abscess persists after multiple aspiration attempts, it is large, or if the overlying skin is thin or otherwise appears nonviable.

Nonpuerperal mastitis includes peripheral, periductal, and idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM). Peripheral mastitis behaves like infections/abscesses in other soft tissues, responds well to treatment (antibiotics and percutaneous drainage), and is less likely to recur than periductal mastitis and IGM.^21,23

Periductal mastitis and abscess, also known as Zuska disease, has a pathogenesis distinct from other forms of mastitis. Squamous metaplasia of the usual cuboidal epithelium of the breast ducts leads to keratin plugging that can cause infection.²³ Risk factors include obesity, smoking, and macromastia. The typical presentation of Zuska disease is a woman with a history of chronic smoking and/or a congenital cleft in the central nipple.²³ Periareolar signs of inflammation (redness, swelling, warmth) may be accompanied by an abscess. These can recur and lead to chronic fistula formation, especially if there is a history of intervention (such as aspiration, incision, and drainage).

Treatment of Zuska disease includes symptom relief and antibiotics. If S aureus is present, infection with methicillin-resistant S aureus is likely, and treatment with clindamycin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid is preferred. If abscess is present, aspiration (preferred, often under ultrasound guidance) or incision and drainage (if the skin is compromised) may be required. If disease is recurrent or associated with a chronically draining fistula, surgical intervention may be warranted, in which resolution requires removing the keratin-plugged ducts in and immediately below the central core of the nipple. Given the association between Zuska disease and smoking, cessation should be encouraged, although there is no guarantee that this will resolve the issue.²³

Continue to: CASE 7 Patient with breast pain and swelling...

CASE 7 Patient with breast pain and swelling

A 39-year-old woman presents with left breast swelling and pain of 1 month’s duration. On examination, there is a 6-cm area of edema, induration, and erythema.

Granulomatous mastitis

A diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound demonstrated an ill-defined hypoechoic mass (FIGURE 7a). Ultrasound-guided biopsy was performed, which showed granulomatous mastitis, negative for fungus and acid-fast bacilli. The patient was treated with prednisone and gradually improved (FIGURE 7b).

Art Credit: Images courtesy of Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS, MBA

Granulomatous mastitis (GM) is a rare benign inflammatory process, with etiologies that include fungal infections, tuberculosis, Wegener granulomatosis, sarcoidosis, and idiopathic causes. Imaging can be nonspecific and show variable features. Mammograms can appear normal or show asymmetry or mass and skin thickening. Ultrasound can show heterogeneous parenchyma, ill-defined hypoechoic collection, or a mass with margins that can be circumscribed or indistinct or with tubular extensions, with or without overlying skin thickening, fistulas, and reactive lymph nodes.²⁴

In this clinical setting, the differential diagnosis includes infectious mastitis, inflammatory breast cancer, foreign body injection granulomas, and diabetic mastopathy. Treatment involves drainage and fluid culture if there is a collection on imaging. A core biopsy is performed if imaging demonstrates a solid mass or fluid culture is negative and symptoms persist or recur. Oral steroids represent the mainstay of treatment if a core biopsy shows GM. However, immunosuppressants, including methotrexate, and surgery are options if initial treatment is not helpful.^25,26

Conclusion

Breast symptoms are common reasons for patient visits to obstetricians and gynecologists. With a good understanding of the various symptomatic breast diseases and conditions, and by having a close collaboration with radiologists and breast surgeons, clinicians can provide excellent care to these patients and thereby improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. ●

Photo: Shutterstock

Telemedicine (or telehealth) originated in the early 1900s, when radios were used to communicate medical advice to clinics aboard ships.¹ According to the American Telemedicine Association, telemedicine is namely “the use of medical information exchanged from one site to another via electronic communications to improve a patient’s clinical health status.”² These communications use 2-way video, email, smartphones, wireless tools, and other forms of telecommunications technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many ObGyns—encouraged and advised by professional organizations—began providing telemedicine services.³ The first reported case of COVID-19 was in late 2019; the use of telemedicine was 38 times higher in February 2021 than in February 2020,⁴ illustrating how many physicians quickly moved to telemedicine practices.

CASE Dr. TM’s telemedicine dream

Before COVID-19, Dr. TM (an ObGyn practi-tioner) practiced in-person medicine in his home state. With the onset of the pandemic, Dr. TM struggled to switch to primarily seeing patients online (generally using Zoom or Facebook Live), with 1 day per week in the office for essential in-person visits.

After several months, however, Dr. TM’s routine became very efficient. He could see many more patients in a shorter time than with the former, in-person system. Therefore, as staff left his practice, Dr. TM did not replace them and also laid off others. Ultimately, the practice had 1 full-time records/insurance secretary who worked from home and 1 part-time nurse who helped with the in-person day and answered some patient inquiries by email. In part as an effort to add new patients, Dr. TM built an engaging website through which his current patients could receive medical information and new patients could sign up.

In late 2022, Dr. TM offered a $100 credit to any current patient who referred a friend or family member who then became a patient. This promotion was surprisingly effective and resulted in an influx of new patients. For example, Patient Z (a long-time patient) received 3 credits for referring her 3 sisters who lived out of state and became telepatients: Patient D, who lived 200 hundred miles away; Patient E, who lived 50 miles away in the adjoining state; and Patient F, who lived 150 miles away. Patient D contacted Dr. TM because she thought she was pregnant and wanted prenatal care, Patient E thought she might have a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and wanted treatment, and Patient F wanted general care and was inquiring about a medical abortion. Dr. TM agreed to treat Patient D but required 1 in-person visit. After 1 brief telemedicine session each with Patients E and F, Dr. TM wrote prescriptions for them.

By 2023, Dr. TM was enthusiastic about telemedicine as a professional practice. However, problems would ensue.

Medical considerations

Telemedicine is endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as a vehicle for delivering prenatal and postpartum care.⁵ This represents an effort to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality,⁵ as well as expandaccess to care and address the deficit in primary care providers and services, especially in rural and underserved populations.^5,6 For obstetrics, prenatal care is designed to optimize pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, with a focus on nutrition and genetic consultation and patient education on pregnancy, childbearing, breastfeeding, and newborn care.⁷

Benefits of telemedicine include its convenience for patients and providers, its efficiency and lower costs for providers (and hopefully patients, as well), and the potential improved access to care for patients.⁸ It is estimated that if a woman inititates obstetric care at 6 weeks, over the course of the 40-week gestation period, 15 prenatal visits will occur.⁹ Ultimately, the number of visits is determined based on the specifics of the pregnancy. With telemedicine, clinicians can provide those consultations, and information related to: ultrasonography, fetal echocardiography, and postpartum care services remotely.¹⁰ Using telemedicine may reduce missed visits, and remote monitoring may improve the quality of care.¹¹

Barriers to telemedicine care include technical limitations, time constraints, and patient concerns of telehealth (visits). Technical limitations include the lack of a high speed internet connection and/or a smart device and the initial technical set-up–related problems,¹² which affect providers as well as patients. Time constraints primarly refer to the ObGyn practice’s lack of time to establish telehealth services.¹³ Other challenges include integrating translation services, billing-related problems,¹⁰ and reimbursement and licensing barriers.¹⁴

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, obstetrics led the way in telemedicine with the development of the OB Nest model. Designed to replace in-person obstetrics care visits with telehealth,¹⁵ it includes home management tools such as blood pressure cuffs, cardiotocography, scales for weight checks, and Doppler ultrasounds.¹⁰ Patients can be instructed to measure fundal height and receive medications by mail. Anesthesia consultation can occur via this venue by having the patient complete a questionnaire prior to arriving at the labor and delivery unit.¹⁶

Legal considerations

With the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary changes were made to encourage the rapid adoption of telemedicine, including changes to licensing laws, certain prescription requirements, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy-security regulations, and reimbursement rules that required in-person visits. Thus, many ObGyns started using telemedicine during this rarified period, in which the rules appeared to be few and far between, with limited enforcement of the law and professional obligations.¹⁷ However, now that many of the legal rules that were suspended or ignored have been (or are being) reimposed and enforced, it is important for providers to become familiar with the legal issues involved in practicing telemedicine.

First, where is the patient? When discussing the legal issues of telemedicine, it is important to remember that many legal rules for medical care (ie, liability, informed consent, and licensing) vary from state to state. If the patient resides in a different state (“foreign” state) from the physician’s practice location (the physician’s “home” state), the care is considered delivered in the state where the patient is located. Thus, the patient’s location generally establishes the law covering the telemedicine transaction. In the following discussion, the rules refer to the law and professional obligations, with commentary on some key legal issues that are relevant to ObGyn telemedicine.

Continue to: Reinforcing the rules...

Licensing

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government and almost all states temporarily modified the licensing requirement to allow telemedicine based on an existing medical license in any state—disregarding the “where is the patient” rule. As those rules begin to lapse or change with the official end of the pandemic declared by President Biden as May 2023,¹⁷ the rules under which a physician began telemedicine interstate practice in 2020 also may be changing.

Simply put, “The same standards for licensure apply to health care providers regardless of whether care is delivered in-person or virtually through telehealth services.”¹⁸ When a physician is engaged in telemedicine treatment of a patient in the physician’s home state, there is generally no licensing issue. Telemedicine generally does not require a separate specific license.¹⁹ However, when the patient is in another state (a “foreign” state), there can be a substantial licensing issue.²⁰ Ordinarily, to provide that treatment, the physician must, in some manner, be approved to practice in the patient’s state. That may occur, for example, in the following ways: (1) the physician may hold an additional regular license in the patient’s state, which allows practice there, or (2) the physician may have received permission for “temporary practice” in another state.

Many states (often adjoining states) have formal agreements with other states that allow telemedicine practice by providers in each other’s states. There also are “compacts”, or agreements that enable providers in any of the participating states to practice in the other associated states without a separate license.¹⁸ Although several websites provide information about compact licensing and the like, clinicians should not rely on simple lists or maps. Individual states may have special provisions about applying their laws to out-of-state “compact” physicians. In addition, under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, “physicians have to pay licensing fees and satisfy the requirements of each medical board in the states where they wish to practice.”²¹

Consequences. Practicing telemedicine with a patient in a state where the physician does not have a license is generally a crime. Furthermore, it may be the basis for license discipline in the physician’s home state and result in a report to the National Practi-tioner Databank.²² In addition, reimbursement often depends on the practitioner being licensed, and the absence of a license may be a basis for denying payment for services.²³ Finally, malpractice insurance generally is limited to licensed practice. Thus, the insurer may decline to defend the unlicensed clinician against a malpractice claim or pay any damages.

Prescribing privileges

Prescribing privileges usually are connected to licensing, so as the rules for licensing change postpandemic, so do the rules for prescribing. In most cases, the physician must have a license in the state where care is given to prescribe medication—which in telemedicine, as noted, typically means the state where the patient is located. Exceptions vary by state, but in general, if a physician does not have a license to provide care, the physician is unlikely to be authorized to prescribe medication.²⁴ Failure to abide by the applicable state rules may result in civil and even criminal liability for illegal prescribing activity.

In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA, which enforces laws concerning controlled substances) also regulate the prescription and sale of pharmaceuticals.²⁵ There are state and federal limits on the ability of clinicians to order controlled substances without an in-person visit. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, for example, sets limits on controlled substance prescriptions without an in-person examination.²⁶ Federal law was modified due to COVID-19 to permit prescribing of many controlled substances by telemedicine if there is synchronous audio and visual examination of the patient. Physicians who write such prescriptions also are required to have a DEA registration in the patient’s state. This is an essential consideration for physicians considering interstate telemedicine practice.²⁷

HIPAA and privacy

Governments waived some of the legal requirements related to health information during the pandemic, but those waivers either have expired or will do so soon. Federal and state laws regarding privacy and security—notably including HIPAA—apply to telemedicine and are of particular concern given the considerable amount of communication of protected health information with telemedicine.

HIPAA security rules essentially require making sure health information cannot be hacked or intercepted. Audio-only telemedicine by landline (not cell) is acceptable under the security rules, but almost all other remote communication requires secure communications.²⁸

Clinicians also need to adhere to the more usual HIPAA privacy rules when practicingtelehealth. State laws protecting patient privacy vary and may be more stringent than HIPAA, so clinicians also must know the requirements in any state where they practice—whether in office or telemedicine.²⁹

Making sure telemedicine practices are consistent with these security and privacy rules often requires particular technical expertise that is outside the realm of most practicing clinicians. However, without modification, the pre-telemedicine technology of many medical offices likely is insufficient for the full range of telemedicine services.³⁰

Reimbursement and fraud

Before COVID-19, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for telemedicine was limited. Government decisions to substantially broaden those reimbursement rules (at least temporarily) provided a substantial boost to telemedicine early in the pandemic.²³ Federal regulations and statutes also expanded telemedicine reimbursement for various services. Some will end shortly after the health emergency, and others will be permanent. Parts of that will not be sorted out for several years, so it will likely be a changing landscape for reimbursement.

One motivation for tightening the rules is the substantial fraud associated with the loosened regulations, including telemedicine.³¹ Current laws apply to such fraud, including, for example, Anti-Kickback Statutes and federal and state False Claims Acts (FCAs). FCAs have “whistleblower” provisions that encourage private citizens to bring fraud actions. Government agencies and private insurance companies will undoubtedly tighten reimbursement regulations to make fraud less common.³²

Continue to: Rules that are evolving...

Informed consent

The ethical and legal obligations to obtain informed consent are present in telemedicineas well as in-person care, with the same basic requirements regarding risks, benefits, alternative care, etc.³² However, with telemedicine, information related to remote care should be included and is outlined in TABLE 1.

Certain states may have somewhat unique informed consent requirements—especially for reproductive care, including abortion.³⁴ Therefore, it is important for clinicians to ensure their consent process and forms comply with any legal jurisdiction in which a patient is located.

Medical malpractice

The basics of medical malpractice (or negligence) are the same in telemedicine as in in-person care: duty, breach of duty, and injury caused by the breach. That is, there may be liability when a medical professional breaches the duty of care, causing the patient’s injury. The physician’s duty is defined by the quality of care that the profession (specialty) accepts as reasonably good. This is defined by the opinions of physicians within the specialty and formal statements from professional organizations, including ACOG.³

Maintaining the standard of care and quality. The use of telemedicine is not an excuse to lower the quality of health care. There are some circumstances for which it is medically better to have an in-person visit. In these instances, the provider should recommend the appropriate care, even if telemedicine would be more convenient for the provider and staff.³⁵

If the patient insists and telemedicine might result in less than optimal care, the reasons for using a remote visit should be clearly documented contemporaneously with the decision. Furthermore, when the limitations of being unable to physically examine the patient result in less information than is needed for the patient’s care, the provider must find alternatives to make up for the information gap.^11,36 It also may be necessary to inform patients about how to maximize telemedicine care.³⁷ At the beginning of telemedicine care the provider should include information about the nature and limits of telehealth, and the patient’s responsibilities. (See TABLE 1) Throughout treatment of the patient, that information should be updated by the provider. That, of course, is particularly important for patients who have not previously used telemedice services^.

Malpractice rules vary by state. Many states have special rules regarding malpractice cases. These differences in malpractice standards and regulations “can be problematic for physicians who use telemedicine services to provide care outside the state in which they practice.”³⁸ Caps on noneconomic damages are an example. Those state rules would apply to telemedicine in the patient’s state.

Malpractice insurance

Malpractice insurance now commonly includes telemedicine legally practiced within the physician’s home state. Practitioners who treat patients in foreign states should carefully examine their malpractice insurance policies to confirm that the coverage extends to practice in those states.³⁹ Malpractice carriers may require notification by a covered physician who routinely provides services to patients in another state.³

Keep in mind, malpractice insurance generally does not cover the practice of medicine that is illegal. Practicing telemedicine in a foreign state, where the physician or other provider does not have a license and where that state does not otherwise permit the practice, is illegal. Most likely, the physician’s malpractice insurance will not cover claims that arise from this illegal practice in a foreign state or provide defense for malpractice claims, including frivolous lawsuits. Thus, the physician will pay out of pocket for the costs of a defense attorney.

Telemedicine treatment of minors

Children and adolescents present special legal issues for ObGyn care, which may become more complicated with telemedicine. Historically, parents are responsible for minors (those aged <18 years): they consent to medical treatment, are responsible for paying for it, and have the right to receive information about treatment.

Over the years, though, many states have made exceptions to these principles, especially with regard to contraception and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.⁴⁰ For abortion, in particular, there is considerable variation among the states in parental consent and notification.⁴¹ The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health⁴² may (depending on the state) be followed with more stringent limitations on adolescent consent to abortions, including medical abortions.⁴³

Use of telehealth does not change any obligations regarding adolescent consent or parental notification. Because those differ considerably among states, it is important for all practitioners to know their states’ requirements and keep reasonably complete records demonstrating their compliance with state law.

Abortion

The most heated current controversy about telemedicine involves abortion—specifically medical abortion, which is the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.^44,45 The FDA approved the combination in 2000. Almost immediately, many states required in-person visits with a certified clinician to receive a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol, and eventually, the FDA adopted similar requirements.⁴⁶ However, during the pandemic from 2021 to 2022, the FDA permitted telemedicine prescriptions. Several states still require in-person physician visits, although the constitutionality of those requirements has not been established.⁴⁷

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health in 2022,⁴² disagreements have ensued about the degree to which states may regulate the prescription of FDA-approved medical abortion drugs. Thorny constitutional issues exist in the plans of both abortion opponents and proponents in the battle over medical abortion in antiabortion states. It may be that federal drug law preempts state laws limiting access to FDA-approved drugs. On the other hand, it may be that states can make it a crime within the state to possess or provide abortion-inducing drugs. Courts will probably take years to resolve the many tangled legal questions.⁴⁸

Thus, while the pandemic telemedicine rules may have advanced access to abortion,³⁴ there may be some pending downsides.⁴⁹ States that prohibit abortion will likely include prohibitions on medical abortions. In addition, they may prohibit anyone in the state (including pharmacies) from selling, possessing, or obtaining any drug used for causing or inducing an abortion.⁵⁰ If, for constitutional reasons, they cannot press criminal charges or undertake licensing discipline for prescribing abortion, some states will likely withdraw from telehealth licensing compacts to avoid out-of-state prescriptions. This area of telemedicine has considerable uncertainty.

Continue to: CASE Conclusion...

CASE Conclusion

Patient concerns come to the fore

By 2023, Dr. TM started receiving bad news. Patient D called complaining that after following the advice on the website, she suffered a severe reaction and had to be rushed to an emergency department. Patient E (who had only 1 in-office visit early in her pregnancy) notified the office that she developed very high blood pressure that resulted in severe placental abruption, requiring emergency care and resulting in the loss of the fetus. Patient F complained that someone hacked the TikTok direct message communication with Dr. TM and tried to “blackmail” or harass her.

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F represent potential problems of telemedicine practice. Patient D was injured because she relied on her doctor’s website (to which Dr. TM directed patients). It contained an error that caused an injury. A doctor-patient relationship existed, and bad medical advice likely caused the injury. Physicians providing advice online must ensure the advice is correct and kept current.

Patient E demonstrates the importance of monitoring patients remotely (blood pressure transmitted to the office) or with periodic in-office visits. It is not clear whether she was a no-show for office visits (and whether the office followed up on any missed appointments) or if such visits were never scheduled. Liability for failure to monitor adequately is a possibility.

Patient F’s seemingly minor complaint could be a potential problem. Dr. TM used an insecure mode of communication. Although some HIPAA security regulations were modified or suspended during the pandemic, using such an unsecure platform is problematic, especially if temporary HIPAA rules expired. The outcome of the complaint is in doubt.

Out-of-state practice

Dr. TM treated 3 out-of-state residents (D, E, and F) via telemedicine. Recently Dr. TM received a complaint from the State Medical Licensure Board for practicing medicine without a license (Patient D), followed by similar charges from Patient E’s and Patient F’s state licensing boards. He has received a licensing inquiry from his home state board about those claims of illegal practice in other states and incompetent treatment.

Patient D’s pregnancy did not go well. The 1 in-person visit did not occur and she has filed a malpractice suit against Dr. TM. Patient E is threatening a malpractice case because the STI was not appropriately diagnosed and had advanced before another physician treated it.
 

In addition, a private citizen in Patient F’s state has filed suit against Dr. TM for abetting an illegal abortion (for Patient F).

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F illustrate the risk of even incidental out-of-state practice. The medical board inquiries arose from anonymous tips to all 4 states reporting Dr. TM was “practicing medicine without a license.” Patient E’s home state did have a licensing compact with the adjoining state (ie, Dr. TM’s home state). However, it required physicians to register and file an annual report, which Dr. TM had not done. The other 2 states did not have compacts with Dr. TM’s home state. Thus, he was illegally practicing medicine and would be subject to penalties. His home state also might impose license discipline based on his illegal practice in other states.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

What’s the verdict?

Dr. TM’s malpractice carrier is refusing to defend the claims of medical malpractice threatened by Patients D, E, and F. The company first notes that the terms of the malpractice policy specifically exclude the illegal practice of medicine. Furthermore, when a physician legally practices in another state, the policy requires a written notice to the insurance carrier of such practice. Dr. TM will likely have to engage and pay for a malpractice attorney for these cases. Because the claims are filed in 3 different states, more than a home-state attorney will likely be involved in the defense of these cases. Dr. TM will need to pay the attorneys and any damages from a settlement or trial.

Malpractice claims. Patient D claims that the doctor essentially abandoned her by never reaching out to her or arranging an in-person visit. Dr. TM claims the patient was responsible for scheduling the in-person visit. Patient E claims it was malpractice not to determine the specific nature of the STI and to do follow-up testing to determine that it was cured. All patients claim there was no genuine informed consent to the telemedicine. An attorney has warned Dr. TM that it is “not going to look good to the jury” that he was practicing without a license in the state and suggests he settle the cases quickly by paying damages.

Abortion-related claims. Patient F presents a different set of problems. Dr. TM’s home state is “proabortion.” Patient F’s home state is strongly “antiabortion,” making it a felony to participate in, assist, or facilitate an abortion (including medical abortion). Criminal charges have been filed against Dr. TM for the illegal practice of medicine, for aiding and facilitating an abortion, and for failure to notify a parent that a minor is seeking an abortion. For now, Dr. TM’s state is refusing to extradite on the abortion charge. Still, the patient’s state insists that it do so on the illegal practice of medicine charges and new charges of insurance fraud and failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a child. (Under the patient’s state law, anyone having sex with Patient F would have engaged in sexual abuse or “statutory rape,” so the state insists that the fact she was pregnant proves someone had sex with her.)

Patient F’s state also has a statute that allows private citizens to file civil claims against anyone procuring or assisting with an abortion (a successful private citizen can receive a minimum of $10,000 from the defendant). Several citizens from the patient’s state have already filed claims against Dr. TM in his state courts. Only one of them, probably the first to file, could succeed. Courts in the state have issued subpoenas and ordered Dr. TM to appear and reply to the civil suits. If he does not respond, there will be a default judgment.

Dr. TM’s attorney tells him that these lawsuits will not settle and will take a long time to defend and resolve. That will be expensive.

Billing and fraud. Dr. TM’s office recently received a series of notices from private health insurers stating they are investigating previously made payments as being fraudulent (unlicensed). They will not pay any new claims pending the investigation. On behalf of Medicare-Medicaid and other federal programs, the US Attorney’s office has notified Dr. TM that it has opened an investigation into fraudulent federal payments. F’s home state also is filing a (criminal) insurance fraud case, although the basis for it is unclear. (Dr. TM’s attorney believes it might be to increase pressure on the physician’s state to extradite Dr. TM for Patient F’s case.)

In addition, a disgruntled former employee of Dr. TM has filed a federal FCA case against him for filing inflated claims with various federally funded programs. The employee also made whistleblower calls to insurance companies and some state-funded medical programs. A forensic accounting investigation by Dr. TM’s accountant confirmed a pattern of very sloppy records and recurring billing for televisits that did not occur. Dr. TM believes that this was the act of one of the temporary assistants he hired in a pinch, who did not understand the system and just guessed when filing some insurance claims.

During the investigation, the federal and state attorneys are looking into a possible violation of state and federal Anti-Kickback Statutes. This is based on the original offer of a $100 credit for referrals to Dr. TM’s telemedicine practice.

The attorneys are concerned that other legal problems may present themselves. They are thoroughly reviewing Dr. TM’s practice and making several critical but somewhat modest changes to his practice. They also have insisted that Dr. TM have appropriate staff to handle the details of the practice and billing.

Conclusions

Telemedicine presents notable legal challenges to medical practice. As the pandemic status ends, ObGyn physicians practicing telemedicine need to be aware of the rules and how they are changing. For those physicians who want to continue or start a telemedicine practice, securing legal and technical support to ensure your operations are inline with the legal requirements can minimize any risk of legal troubles in the future. ●

Photo: Shutterstock

Telemedicine (or telehealth) originated in the early 1900s, when radios were used to communicate medical advice to clinics aboard ships.¹ According to the American Telemedicine Association, telemedicine is namely “the use of medical information exchanged from one site to another via electronic communications to improve a patient’s clinical health status.”² These communications use 2-way video, email, smartphones, wireless tools, and other forms of telecommunications technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many ObGyns—encouraged and advised by professional organizations—began providing telemedicine services.³ The first reported case of COVID-19 was in late 2019; the use of telemedicine was 38 times higher in February 2021 than in February 2020,⁴ illustrating how many physicians quickly moved to telemedicine practices.

CASE Dr. TM’s telemedicine dream

Before COVID-19, Dr. TM (an ObGyn practi-tioner) practiced in-person medicine in his home state. With the onset of the pandemic, Dr. TM struggled to switch to primarily seeing patients online (generally using Zoom or Facebook Live), with 1 day per week in the office for essential in-person visits.

After several months, however, Dr. TM’s routine became very efficient. He could see many more patients in a shorter time than with the former, in-person system. Therefore, as staff left his practice, Dr. TM did not replace them and also laid off others. Ultimately, the practice had 1 full-time records/insurance secretary who worked from home and 1 part-time nurse who helped with the in-person day and answered some patient inquiries by email. In part as an effort to add new patients, Dr. TM built an engaging website through which his current patients could receive medical information and new patients could sign up.

In late 2022, Dr. TM offered a $100 credit to any current patient who referred a friend or family member who then became a patient. This promotion was surprisingly effective and resulted in an influx of new patients. For example, Patient Z (a long-time patient) received 3 credits for referring her 3 sisters who lived out of state and became telepatients: Patient D, who lived 200 hundred miles away; Patient E, who lived 50 miles away in the adjoining state; and Patient F, who lived 150 miles away. Patient D contacted Dr. TM because she thought she was pregnant and wanted prenatal care, Patient E thought she might have a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and wanted treatment, and Patient F wanted general care and was inquiring about a medical abortion. Dr. TM agreed to treat Patient D but required 1 in-person visit. After 1 brief telemedicine session each with Patients E and F, Dr. TM wrote prescriptions for them.

By 2023, Dr. TM was enthusiastic about telemedicine as a professional practice. However, problems would ensue.

Medical considerations

Telemedicine is endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as a vehicle for delivering prenatal and postpartum care.⁵ This represents an effort to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality,⁵ as well as expandaccess to care and address the deficit in primary care providers and services, especially in rural and underserved populations.^5,6 For obstetrics, prenatal care is designed to optimize pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, with a focus on nutrition and genetic consultation and patient education on pregnancy, childbearing, breastfeeding, and newborn care.⁷

Benefits of telemedicine include its convenience for patients and providers, its efficiency and lower costs for providers (and hopefully patients, as well), and the potential improved access to care for patients.⁸ It is estimated that if a woman inititates obstetric care at 6 weeks, over the course of the 40-week gestation period, 15 prenatal visits will occur.⁹ Ultimately, the number of visits is determined based on the specifics of the pregnancy. With telemedicine, clinicians can provide those consultations, and information related to: ultrasonography, fetal echocardiography, and postpartum care services remotely.¹⁰ Using telemedicine may reduce missed visits, and remote monitoring may improve the quality of care.¹¹

Barriers to telemedicine care include technical limitations, time constraints, and patient concerns of telehealth (visits). Technical limitations include the lack of a high speed internet connection and/or a smart device and the initial technical set-up–related problems,¹² which affect providers as well as patients. Time constraints primarly refer to the ObGyn practice’s lack of time to establish telehealth services.¹³ Other challenges include integrating translation services, billing-related problems,¹⁰ and reimbursement and licensing barriers.¹⁴

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, obstetrics led the way in telemedicine with the development of the OB Nest model. Designed to replace in-person obstetrics care visits with telehealth,¹⁵ it includes home management tools such as blood pressure cuffs, cardiotocography, scales for weight checks, and Doppler ultrasounds.¹⁰ Patients can be instructed to measure fundal height and receive medications by mail. Anesthesia consultation can occur via this venue by having the patient complete a questionnaire prior to arriving at the labor and delivery unit.¹⁶

Legal considerations

With the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary changes were made to encourage the rapid adoption of telemedicine, including changes to licensing laws, certain prescription requirements, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy-security regulations, and reimbursement rules that required in-person visits. Thus, many ObGyns started using telemedicine during this rarified period, in which the rules appeared to be few and far between, with limited enforcement of the law and professional obligations.¹⁷ However, now that many of the legal rules that were suspended or ignored have been (or are being) reimposed and enforced, it is important for providers to become familiar with the legal issues involved in practicing telemedicine.

First, where is the patient? When discussing the legal issues of telemedicine, it is important to remember that many legal rules for medical care (ie, liability, informed consent, and licensing) vary from state to state. If the patient resides in a different state (“foreign” state) from the physician’s practice location (the physician’s “home” state), the care is considered delivered in the state where the patient is located. Thus, the patient’s location generally establishes the law covering the telemedicine transaction. In the following discussion, the rules refer to the law and professional obligations, with commentary on some key legal issues that are relevant to ObGyn telemedicine.

Continue to: Reinforcing the rules...

Licensing

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government and almost all states temporarily modified the licensing requirement to allow telemedicine based on an existing medical license in any state—disregarding the “where is the patient” rule. As those rules begin to lapse or change with the official end of the pandemic declared by President Biden as May 2023,¹⁷ the rules under which a physician began telemedicine interstate practice in 2020 also may be changing.

Simply put, “The same standards for licensure apply to health care providers regardless of whether care is delivered in-person or virtually through telehealth services.”¹⁸ When a physician is engaged in telemedicine treatment of a patient in the physician’s home state, there is generally no licensing issue. Telemedicine generally does not require a separate specific license.¹⁹ However, when the patient is in another state (a “foreign” state), there can be a substantial licensing issue.²⁰ Ordinarily, to provide that treatment, the physician must, in some manner, be approved to practice in the patient’s state. That may occur, for example, in the following ways: (1) the physician may hold an additional regular license in the patient’s state, which allows practice there, or (2) the physician may have received permission for “temporary practice” in another state.

Many states (often adjoining states) have formal agreements with other states that allow telemedicine practice by providers in each other’s states. There also are “compacts”, or agreements that enable providers in any of the participating states to practice in the other associated states without a separate license.¹⁸ Although several websites provide information about compact licensing and the like, clinicians should not rely on simple lists or maps. Individual states may have special provisions about applying their laws to out-of-state “compact” physicians. In addition, under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, “physicians have to pay licensing fees and satisfy the requirements of each medical board in the states where they wish to practice.”²¹

Consequences. Practicing telemedicine with a patient in a state where the physician does not have a license is generally a crime. Furthermore, it may be the basis for license discipline in the physician’s home state and result in a report to the National Practi-tioner Databank.²² In addition, reimbursement often depends on the practitioner being licensed, and the absence of a license may be a basis for denying payment for services.²³ Finally, malpractice insurance generally is limited to licensed practice. Thus, the insurer may decline to defend the unlicensed clinician against a malpractice claim or pay any damages.

Prescribing privileges

Prescribing privileges usually are connected to licensing, so as the rules for licensing change postpandemic, so do the rules for prescribing. In most cases, the physician must have a license in the state where care is given to prescribe medication—which in telemedicine, as noted, typically means the state where the patient is located. Exceptions vary by state, but in general, if a physician does not have a license to provide care, the physician is unlikely to be authorized to prescribe medication.²⁴ Failure to abide by the applicable state rules may result in civil and even criminal liability for illegal prescribing activity.

In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA, which enforces laws concerning controlled substances) also regulate the prescription and sale of pharmaceuticals.²⁵ There are state and federal limits on the ability of clinicians to order controlled substances without an in-person visit. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, for example, sets limits on controlled substance prescriptions without an in-person examination.²⁶ Federal law was modified due to COVID-19 to permit prescribing of many controlled substances by telemedicine if there is synchronous audio and visual examination of the patient. Physicians who write such prescriptions also are required to have a DEA registration in the patient’s state. This is an essential consideration for physicians considering interstate telemedicine practice.²⁷

HIPAA and privacy

Governments waived some of the legal requirements related to health information during the pandemic, but those waivers either have expired or will do so soon. Federal and state laws regarding privacy and security—notably including HIPAA—apply to telemedicine and are of particular concern given the considerable amount of communication of protected health information with telemedicine.

HIPAA security rules essentially require making sure health information cannot be hacked or intercepted. Audio-only telemedicine by landline (not cell) is acceptable under the security rules, but almost all other remote communication requires secure communications.²⁸

Clinicians also need to adhere to the more usual HIPAA privacy rules when practicingtelehealth. State laws protecting patient privacy vary and may be more stringent than HIPAA, so clinicians also must know the requirements in any state where they practice—whether in office or telemedicine.²⁹

Making sure telemedicine practices are consistent with these security and privacy rules often requires particular technical expertise that is outside the realm of most practicing clinicians. However, without modification, the pre-telemedicine technology of many medical offices likely is insufficient for the full range of telemedicine services.³⁰

Reimbursement and fraud

Before COVID-19, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for telemedicine was limited. Government decisions to substantially broaden those reimbursement rules (at least temporarily) provided a substantial boost to telemedicine early in the pandemic.²³ Federal regulations and statutes also expanded telemedicine reimbursement for various services. Some will end shortly after the health emergency, and others will be permanent. Parts of that will not be sorted out for several years, so it will likely be a changing landscape for reimbursement.

One motivation for tightening the rules is the substantial fraud associated with the loosened regulations, including telemedicine.³¹ Current laws apply to such fraud, including, for example, Anti-Kickback Statutes and federal and state False Claims Acts (FCAs). FCAs have “whistleblower” provisions that encourage private citizens to bring fraud actions. Government agencies and private insurance companies will undoubtedly tighten reimbursement regulations to make fraud less common.³²

Continue to: Rules that are evolving...

Informed consent

The ethical and legal obligations to obtain informed consent are present in telemedicineas well as in-person care, with the same basic requirements regarding risks, benefits, alternative care, etc.³² However, with telemedicine, information related to remote care should be included and is outlined in TABLE 1.

Certain states may have somewhat unique informed consent requirements—especially for reproductive care, including abortion.³⁴ Therefore, it is important for clinicians to ensure their consent process and forms comply with any legal jurisdiction in which a patient is located.

Medical malpractice

The basics of medical malpractice (or negligence) are the same in telemedicine as in in-person care: duty, breach of duty, and injury caused by the breach. That is, there may be liability when a medical professional breaches the duty of care, causing the patient’s injury. The physician’s duty is defined by the quality of care that the profession (specialty) accepts as reasonably good. This is defined by the opinions of physicians within the specialty and formal statements from professional organizations, including ACOG.³

Maintaining the standard of care and quality. The use of telemedicine is not an excuse to lower the quality of health care. There are some circumstances for which it is medically better to have an in-person visit. In these instances, the provider should recommend the appropriate care, even if telemedicine would be more convenient for the provider and staff.³⁵

If the patient insists and telemedicine might result in less than optimal care, the reasons for using a remote visit should be clearly documented contemporaneously with the decision. Furthermore, when the limitations of being unable to physically examine the patient result in less information than is needed for the patient’s care, the provider must find alternatives to make up for the information gap.^11,36 It also may be necessary to inform patients about how to maximize telemedicine care.³⁷ At the beginning of telemedicine care the provider should include information about the nature and limits of telehealth, and the patient’s responsibilities. (See TABLE 1) Throughout treatment of the patient, that information should be updated by the provider. That, of course, is particularly important for patients who have not previously used telemedice services^.

Malpractice rules vary by state. Many states have special rules regarding malpractice cases. These differences in malpractice standards and regulations “can be problematic for physicians who use telemedicine services to provide care outside the state in which they practice.”³⁸ Caps on noneconomic damages are an example. Those state rules would apply to telemedicine in the patient’s state.

Malpractice insurance

Malpractice insurance now commonly includes telemedicine legally practiced within the physician’s home state. Practitioners who treat patients in foreign states should carefully examine their malpractice insurance policies to confirm that the coverage extends to practice in those states.³⁹ Malpractice carriers may require notification by a covered physician who routinely provides services to patients in another state.³

Keep in mind, malpractice insurance generally does not cover the practice of medicine that is illegal. Practicing telemedicine in a foreign state, where the physician or other provider does not have a license and where that state does not otherwise permit the practice, is illegal. Most likely, the physician’s malpractice insurance will not cover claims that arise from this illegal practice in a foreign state or provide defense for malpractice claims, including frivolous lawsuits. Thus, the physician will pay out of pocket for the costs of a defense attorney.

Telemedicine treatment of minors

Children and adolescents present special legal issues for ObGyn care, which may become more complicated with telemedicine. Historically, parents are responsible for minors (those aged <18 years): they consent to medical treatment, are responsible for paying for it, and have the right to receive information about treatment.

Over the years, though, many states have made exceptions to these principles, especially with regard to contraception and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.⁴⁰ For abortion, in particular, there is considerable variation among the states in parental consent and notification.⁴¹ The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health⁴² may (depending on the state) be followed with more stringent limitations on adolescent consent to abortions, including medical abortions.⁴³

Use of telehealth does not change any obligations regarding adolescent consent or parental notification. Because those differ considerably among states, it is important for all practitioners to know their states’ requirements and keep reasonably complete records demonstrating their compliance with state law.

Abortion

The most heated current controversy about telemedicine involves abortion—specifically medical abortion, which is the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.^44,45 The FDA approved the combination in 2000. Almost immediately, many states required in-person visits with a certified clinician to receive a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol, and eventually, the FDA adopted similar requirements.⁴⁶ However, during the pandemic from 2021 to 2022, the FDA permitted telemedicine prescriptions. Several states still require in-person physician visits, although the constitutionality of those requirements has not been established.⁴⁷

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health in 2022,⁴² disagreements have ensued about the degree to which states may regulate the prescription of FDA-approved medical abortion drugs. Thorny constitutional issues exist in the plans of both abortion opponents and proponents in the battle over medical abortion in antiabortion states. It may be that federal drug law preempts state laws limiting access to FDA-approved drugs. On the other hand, it may be that states can make it a crime within the state to possess or provide abortion-inducing drugs. Courts will probably take years to resolve the many tangled legal questions.⁴⁸

Thus, while the pandemic telemedicine rules may have advanced access to abortion,³⁴ there may be some pending downsides.⁴⁹ States that prohibit abortion will likely include prohibitions on medical abortions. In addition, they may prohibit anyone in the state (including pharmacies) from selling, possessing, or obtaining any drug used for causing or inducing an abortion.⁵⁰ If, for constitutional reasons, they cannot press criminal charges or undertake licensing discipline for prescribing abortion, some states will likely withdraw from telehealth licensing compacts to avoid out-of-state prescriptions. This area of telemedicine has considerable uncertainty.

Continue to: CASE Conclusion...

CASE Conclusion

Patient concerns come to the fore

By 2023, Dr. TM started receiving bad news. Patient D called complaining that after following the advice on the website, she suffered a severe reaction and had to be rushed to an emergency department. Patient E (who had only 1 in-office visit early in her pregnancy) notified the office that she developed very high blood pressure that resulted in severe placental abruption, requiring emergency care and resulting in the loss of the fetus. Patient F complained that someone hacked the TikTok direct message communication with Dr. TM and tried to “blackmail” or harass her.

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F represent potential problems of telemedicine practice. Patient D was injured because she relied on her doctor’s website (to which Dr. TM directed patients). It contained an error that caused an injury. A doctor-patient relationship existed, and bad medical advice likely caused the injury. Physicians providing advice online must ensure the advice is correct and kept current.

Patient E demonstrates the importance of monitoring patients remotely (blood pressure transmitted to the office) or with periodic in-office visits. It is not clear whether she was a no-show for office visits (and whether the office followed up on any missed appointments) or if such visits were never scheduled. Liability for failure to monitor adequately is a possibility.

Patient F’s seemingly minor complaint could be a potential problem. Dr. TM used an insecure mode of communication. Although some HIPAA security regulations were modified or suspended during the pandemic, using such an unsecure platform is problematic, especially if temporary HIPAA rules expired. The outcome of the complaint is in doubt.

Out-of-state practice

Dr. TM treated 3 out-of-state residents (D, E, and F) via telemedicine. Recently Dr. TM received a complaint from the State Medical Licensure Board for practicing medicine without a license (Patient D), followed by similar charges from Patient E’s and Patient F’s state licensing boards. He has received a licensing inquiry from his home state board about those claims of illegal practice in other states and incompetent treatment.

Patient D’s pregnancy did not go well. The 1 in-person visit did not occur and she has filed a malpractice suit against Dr. TM. Patient E is threatening a malpractice case because the STI was not appropriately diagnosed and had advanced before another physician treated it.
 

In addition, a private citizen in Patient F’s state has filed suit against Dr. TM for abetting an illegal abortion (for Patient F).

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F illustrate the risk of even incidental out-of-state practice. The medical board inquiries arose from anonymous tips to all 4 states reporting Dr. TM was “practicing medicine without a license.” Patient E’s home state did have a licensing compact with the adjoining state (ie, Dr. TM’s home state). However, it required physicians to register and file an annual report, which Dr. TM had not done. The other 2 states did not have compacts with Dr. TM’s home state. Thus, he was illegally practicing medicine and would be subject to penalties. His home state also might impose license discipline based on his illegal practice in other states.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

What’s the verdict?

Dr. TM’s malpractice carrier is refusing to defend the claims of medical malpractice threatened by Patients D, E, and F. The company first notes that the terms of the malpractice policy specifically exclude the illegal practice of medicine. Furthermore, when a physician legally practices in another state, the policy requires a written notice to the insurance carrier of such practice. Dr. TM will likely have to engage and pay for a malpractice attorney for these cases. Because the claims are filed in 3 different states, more than a home-state attorney will likely be involved in the defense of these cases. Dr. TM will need to pay the attorneys and any damages from a settlement or trial.

Malpractice claims. Patient D claims that the doctor essentially abandoned her by never reaching out to her or arranging an in-person visit. Dr. TM claims the patient was responsible for scheduling the in-person visit. Patient E claims it was malpractice not to determine the specific nature of the STI and to do follow-up testing to determine that it was cured. All patients claim there was no genuine informed consent to the telemedicine. An attorney has warned Dr. TM that it is “not going to look good to the jury” that he was practicing without a license in the state and suggests he settle the cases quickly by paying damages.

Abortion-related claims. Patient F presents a different set of problems. Dr. TM’s home state is “proabortion.” Patient F’s home state is strongly “antiabortion,” making it a felony to participate in, assist, or facilitate an abortion (including medical abortion). Criminal charges have been filed against Dr. TM for the illegal practice of medicine, for aiding and facilitating an abortion, and for failure to notify a parent that a minor is seeking an abortion. For now, Dr. TM’s state is refusing to extradite on the abortion charge. Still, the patient’s state insists that it do so on the illegal practice of medicine charges and new charges of insurance fraud and failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a child. (Under the patient’s state law, anyone having sex with Patient F would have engaged in sexual abuse or “statutory rape,” so the state insists that the fact she was pregnant proves someone had sex with her.)

Patient F’s state also has a statute that allows private citizens to file civil claims against anyone procuring or assisting with an abortion (a successful private citizen can receive a minimum of $10,000 from the defendant). Several citizens from the patient’s state have already filed claims against Dr. TM in his state courts. Only one of them, probably the first to file, could succeed. Courts in the state have issued subpoenas and ordered Dr. TM to appear and reply to the civil suits. If he does not respond, there will be a default judgment.

Dr. TM’s attorney tells him that these lawsuits will not settle and will take a long time to defend and resolve. That will be expensive.

Billing and fraud. Dr. TM’s office recently received a series of notices from private health insurers stating they are investigating previously made payments as being fraudulent (unlicensed). They will not pay any new claims pending the investigation. On behalf of Medicare-Medicaid and other federal programs, the US Attorney’s office has notified Dr. TM that it has opened an investigation into fraudulent federal payments. F’s home state also is filing a (criminal) insurance fraud case, although the basis for it is unclear. (Dr. TM’s attorney believes it might be to increase pressure on the physician’s state to extradite Dr. TM for Patient F’s case.)

In addition, a disgruntled former employee of Dr. TM has filed a federal FCA case against him for filing inflated claims with various federally funded programs. The employee also made whistleblower calls to insurance companies and some state-funded medical programs. A forensic accounting investigation by Dr. TM’s accountant confirmed a pattern of very sloppy records and recurring billing for televisits that did not occur. Dr. TM believes that this was the act of one of the temporary assistants he hired in a pinch, who did not understand the system and just guessed when filing some insurance claims.

During the investigation, the federal and state attorneys are looking into a possible violation of state and federal Anti-Kickback Statutes. This is based on the original offer of a $100 credit for referrals to Dr. TM’s telemedicine practice.

The attorneys are concerned that other legal problems may present themselves. They are thoroughly reviewing Dr. TM’s practice and making several critical but somewhat modest changes to his practice. They also have insisted that Dr. TM have appropriate staff to handle the details of the practice and billing.

Conclusions

Telemedicine presents notable legal challenges to medical practice. As the pandemic status ends, ObGyn physicians practicing telemedicine need to be aware of the rules and how they are changing. For those physicians who want to continue or start a telemedicine practice, securing legal and technical support to ensure your operations are inline with the legal requirements can minimize any risk of legal troubles in the future. ●

Photo: Shutterstock

Telemedicine (or telehealth) originated in the early 1900s, when radios were used to communicate medical advice to clinics aboard ships.¹ According to the American Telemedicine Association, telemedicine is namely “the use of medical information exchanged from one site to another via electronic communications to improve a patient’s clinical health status.”² These communications use 2-way video, email, smartphones, wireless tools, and other forms of telecommunications technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many ObGyns—encouraged and advised by professional organizations—began providing telemedicine services.³ The first reported case of COVID-19 was in late 2019; the use of telemedicine was 38 times higher in February 2021 than in February 2020,⁴ illustrating how many physicians quickly moved to telemedicine practices.

CASE Dr. TM’s telemedicine dream

Before COVID-19, Dr. TM (an ObGyn practi-tioner) practiced in-person medicine in his home state. With the onset of the pandemic, Dr. TM struggled to switch to primarily seeing patients online (generally using Zoom or Facebook Live), with 1 day per week in the office for essential in-person visits.

After several months, however, Dr. TM’s routine became very efficient. He could see many more patients in a shorter time than with the former, in-person system. Therefore, as staff left his practice, Dr. TM did not replace them and also laid off others. Ultimately, the practice had 1 full-time records/insurance secretary who worked from home and 1 part-time nurse who helped with the in-person day and answered some patient inquiries by email. In part as an effort to add new patients, Dr. TM built an engaging website through which his current patients could receive medical information and new patients could sign up.

In late 2022, Dr. TM offered a $100 credit to any current patient who referred a friend or family member who then became a patient. This promotion was surprisingly effective and resulted in an influx of new patients. For example, Patient Z (a long-time patient) received 3 credits for referring her 3 sisters who lived out of state and became telepatients: Patient D, who lived 200 hundred miles away; Patient E, who lived 50 miles away in the adjoining state; and Patient F, who lived 150 miles away. Patient D contacted Dr. TM because she thought she was pregnant and wanted prenatal care, Patient E thought she might have a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and wanted treatment, and Patient F wanted general care and was inquiring about a medical abortion. Dr. TM agreed to treat Patient D but required 1 in-person visit. After 1 brief telemedicine session each with Patients E and F, Dr. TM wrote prescriptions for them.

By 2023, Dr. TM was enthusiastic about telemedicine as a professional practice. However, problems would ensue.

Medical considerations

Telemedicine is endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as a vehicle for delivering prenatal and postpartum care.⁵ This represents an effort to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality,⁵ as well as expandaccess to care and address the deficit in primary care providers and services, especially in rural and underserved populations.^5,6 For obstetrics, prenatal care is designed to optimize pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, with a focus on nutrition and genetic consultation and patient education on pregnancy, childbearing, breastfeeding, and newborn care.⁷

Benefits of telemedicine include its convenience for patients and providers, its efficiency and lower costs for providers (and hopefully patients, as well), and the potential improved access to care for patients.⁸ It is estimated that if a woman inititates obstetric care at 6 weeks, over the course of the 40-week gestation period, 15 prenatal visits will occur.⁹ Ultimately, the number of visits is determined based on the specifics of the pregnancy. With telemedicine, clinicians can provide those consultations, and information related to: ultrasonography, fetal echocardiography, and postpartum care services remotely.¹⁰ Using telemedicine may reduce missed visits, and remote monitoring may improve the quality of care.¹¹

Barriers to telemedicine care include technical limitations, time constraints, and patient concerns of telehealth (visits). Technical limitations include the lack of a high speed internet connection and/or a smart device and the initial technical set-up–related problems,¹² which affect providers as well as patients. Time constraints primarly refer to the ObGyn practice’s lack of time to establish telehealth services.¹³ Other challenges include integrating translation services, billing-related problems,¹⁰ and reimbursement and licensing barriers.¹⁴

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, obstetrics led the way in telemedicine with the development of the OB Nest model. Designed to replace in-person obstetrics care visits with telehealth,¹⁵ it includes home management tools such as blood pressure cuffs, cardiotocography, scales for weight checks, and Doppler ultrasounds.¹⁰ Patients can be instructed to measure fundal height and receive medications by mail. Anesthesia consultation can occur via this venue by having the patient complete a questionnaire prior to arriving at the labor and delivery unit.¹⁶

Legal considerations

With the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary changes were made to encourage the rapid adoption of telemedicine, including changes to licensing laws, certain prescription requirements, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy-security regulations, and reimbursement rules that required in-person visits. Thus, many ObGyns started using telemedicine during this rarified period, in which the rules appeared to be few and far between, with limited enforcement of the law and professional obligations.¹⁷ However, now that many of the legal rules that were suspended or ignored have been (or are being) reimposed and enforced, it is important for providers to become familiar with the legal issues involved in practicing telemedicine.

First, where is the patient? When discussing the legal issues of telemedicine, it is important to remember that many legal rules for medical care (ie, liability, informed consent, and licensing) vary from state to state. If the patient resides in a different state (“foreign” state) from the physician’s practice location (the physician’s “home” state), the care is considered delivered in the state where the patient is located. Thus, the patient’s location generally establishes the law covering the telemedicine transaction. In the following discussion, the rules refer to the law and professional obligations, with commentary on some key legal issues that are relevant to ObGyn telemedicine.

Continue to: Reinforcing the rules...

Licensing

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government and almost all states temporarily modified the licensing requirement to allow telemedicine based on an existing medical license in any state—disregarding the “where is the patient” rule. As those rules begin to lapse or change with the official end of the pandemic declared by President Biden as May 2023,¹⁷ the rules under which a physician began telemedicine interstate practice in 2020 also may be changing.

Simply put, “The same standards for licensure apply to health care providers regardless of whether care is delivered in-person or virtually through telehealth services.”¹⁸ When a physician is engaged in telemedicine treatment of a patient in the physician’s home state, there is generally no licensing issue. Telemedicine generally does not require a separate specific license.¹⁹ However, when the patient is in another state (a “foreign” state), there can be a substantial licensing issue.²⁰ Ordinarily, to provide that treatment, the physician must, in some manner, be approved to practice in the patient’s state. That may occur, for example, in the following ways: (1) the physician may hold an additional regular license in the patient’s state, which allows practice there, or (2) the physician may have received permission for “temporary practice” in another state.

Many states (often adjoining states) have formal agreements with other states that allow telemedicine practice by providers in each other’s states. There also are “compacts”, or agreements that enable providers in any of the participating states to practice in the other associated states without a separate license.¹⁸ Although several websites provide information about compact licensing and the like, clinicians should not rely on simple lists or maps. Individual states may have special provisions about applying their laws to out-of-state “compact” physicians. In addition, under the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, “physicians have to pay licensing fees and satisfy the requirements of each medical board in the states where they wish to practice.”²¹

Consequences. Practicing telemedicine with a patient in a state where the physician does not have a license is generally a crime. Furthermore, it may be the basis for license discipline in the physician’s home state and result in a report to the National Practi-tioner Databank.²² In addition, reimbursement often depends on the practitioner being licensed, and the absence of a license may be a basis for denying payment for services.²³ Finally, malpractice insurance generally is limited to licensed practice. Thus, the insurer may decline to defend the unlicensed clinician against a malpractice claim or pay any damages.

Prescribing privileges

Prescribing privileges usually are connected to licensing, so as the rules for licensing change postpandemic, so do the rules for prescribing. In most cases, the physician must have a license in the state where care is given to prescribe medication—which in telemedicine, as noted, typically means the state where the patient is located. Exceptions vary by state, but in general, if a physician does not have a license to provide care, the physician is unlikely to be authorized to prescribe medication.²⁴ Failure to abide by the applicable state rules may result in civil and even criminal liability for illegal prescribing activity.

In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA, which enforces laws concerning controlled substances) also regulate the prescription and sale of pharmaceuticals.²⁵ There are state and federal limits on the ability of clinicians to order controlled substances without an in-person visit. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, for example, sets limits on controlled substance prescriptions without an in-person examination.²⁶ Federal law was modified due to COVID-19 to permit prescribing of many controlled substances by telemedicine if there is synchronous audio and visual examination of the patient. Physicians who write such prescriptions also are required to have a DEA registration in the patient’s state. This is an essential consideration for physicians considering interstate telemedicine practice.²⁷

HIPAA and privacy

Governments waived some of the legal requirements related to health information during the pandemic, but those waivers either have expired or will do so soon. Federal and state laws regarding privacy and security—notably including HIPAA—apply to telemedicine and are of particular concern given the considerable amount of communication of protected health information with telemedicine.

HIPAA security rules essentially require making sure health information cannot be hacked or intercepted. Audio-only telemedicine by landline (not cell) is acceptable under the security rules, but almost all other remote communication requires secure communications.²⁸

Clinicians also need to adhere to the more usual HIPAA privacy rules when practicingtelehealth. State laws protecting patient privacy vary and may be more stringent than HIPAA, so clinicians also must know the requirements in any state where they practice—whether in office or telemedicine.²⁹

Making sure telemedicine practices are consistent with these security and privacy rules often requires particular technical expertise that is outside the realm of most practicing clinicians. However, without modification, the pre-telemedicine technology of many medical offices likely is insufficient for the full range of telemedicine services.³⁰

Reimbursement and fraud

Before COVID-19, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for telemedicine was limited. Government decisions to substantially broaden those reimbursement rules (at least temporarily) provided a substantial boost to telemedicine early in the pandemic.²³ Federal regulations and statutes also expanded telemedicine reimbursement for various services. Some will end shortly after the health emergency, and others will be permanent. Parts of that will not be sorted out for several years, so it will likely be a changing landscape for reimbursement.

One motivation for tightening the rules is the substantial fraud associated with the loosened regulations, including telemedicine.³¹ Current laws apply to such fraud, including, for example, Anti-Kickback Statutes and federal and state False Claims Acts (FCAs). FCAs have “whistleblower” provisions that encourage private citizens to bring fraud actions. Government agencies and private insurance companies will undoubtedly tighten reimbursement regulations to make fraud less common.³²

Continue to: Rules that are evolving...

Informed consent

The ethical and legal obligations to obtain informed consent are present in telemedicineas well as in-person care, with the same basic requirements regarding risks, benefits, alternative care, etc.³² However, with telemedicine, information related to remote care should be included and is outlined in TABLE 1.

Certain states may have somewhat unique informed consent requirements—especially for reproductive care, including abortion.³⁴ Therefore, it is important for clinicians to ensure their consent process and forms comply with any legal jurisdiction in which a patient is located.

Medical malpractice

The basics of medical malpractice (or negligence) are the same in telemedicine as in in-person care: duty, breach of duty, and injury caused by the breach. That is, there may be liability when a medical professional breaches the duty of care, causing the patient’s injury. The physician’s duty is defined by the quality of care that the profession (specialty) accepts as reasonably good. This is defined by the opinions of physicians within the specialty and formal statements from professional organizations, including ACOG.³

Maintaining the standard of care and quality. The use of telemedicine is not an excuse to lower the quality of health care. There are some circumstances for which it is medically better to have an in-person visit. In these instances, the provider should recommend the appropriate care, even if telemedicine would be more convenient for the provider and staff.³⁵

If the patient insists and telemedicine might result in less than optimal care, the reasons for using a remote visit should be clearly documented contemporaneously with the decision. Furthermore, when the limitations of being unable to physically examine the patient result in less information than is needed for the patient’s care, the provider must find alternatives to make up for the information gap.^11,36 It also may be necessary to inform patients about how to maximize telemedicine care.³⁷ At the beginning of telemedicine care the provider should include information about the nature and limits of telehealth, and the patient’s responsibilities. (See TABLE 1) Throughout treatment of the patient, that information should be updated by the provider. That, of course, is particularly important for patients who have not previously used telemedice services^.

Malpractice rules vary by state. Many states have special rules regarding malpractice cases. These differences in malpractice standards and regulations “can be problematic for physicians who use telemedicine services to provide care outside the state in which they practice.”³⁸ Caps on noneconomic damages are an example. Those state rules would apply to telemedicine in the patient’s state.

Malpractice insurance

Malpractice insurance now commonly includes telemedicine legally practiced within the physician’s home state. Practitioners who treat patients in foreign states should carefully examine their malpractice insurance policies to confirm that the coverage extends to practice in those states.³⁹ Malpractice carriers may require notification by a covered physician who routinely provides services to patients in another state.³

Keep in mind, malpractice insurance generally does not cover the practice of medicine that is illegal. Practicing telemedicine in a foreign state, where the physician or other provider does not have a license and where that state does not otherwise permit the practice, is illegal. Most likely, the physician’s malpractice insurance will not cover claims that arise from this illegal practice in a foreign state or provide defense for malpractice claims, including frivolous lawsuits. Thus, the physician will pay out of pocket for the costs of a defense attorney.

Telemedicine treatment of minors

Children and adolescents present special legal issues for ObGyn care, which may become more complicated with telemedicine. Historically, parents are responsible for minors (those aged <18 years): they consent to medical treatment, are responsible for paying for it, and have the right to receive information about treatment.

Over the years, though, many states have made exceptions to these principles, especially with regard to contraception and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.⁴⁰ For abortion, in particular, there is considerable variation among the states in parental consent and notification.⁴¹ The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health⁴² may (depending on the state) be followed with more stringent limitations on adolescent consent to abortions, including medical abortions.⁴³

Use of telehealth does not change any obligations regarding adolescent consent or parental notification. Because those differ considerably among states, it is important for all practitioners to know their states’ requirements and keep reasonably complete records demonstrating their compliance with state law.

Abortion

The most heated current controversy about telemedicine involves abortion—specifically medical abortion, which is the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.^44,45 The FDA approved the combination in 2000. Almost immediately, many states required in-person visits with a certified clinician to receive a prescription for mifepristone and misoprostol, and eventually, the FDA adopted similar requirements.⁴⁶ However, during the pandemic from 2021 to 2022, the FDA permitted telemedicine prescriptions. Several states still require in-person physician visits, although the constitutionality of those requirements has not been established.⁴⁷

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health in 2022,⁴² disagreements have ensued about the degree to which states may regulate the prescription of FDA-approved medical abortion drugs. Thorny constitutional issues exist in the plans of both abortion opponents and proponents in the battle over medical abortion in antiabortion states. It may be that federal drug law preempts state laws limiting access to FDA-approved drugs. On the other hand, it may be that states can make it a crime within the state to possess or provide abortion-inducing drugs. Courts will probably take years to resolve the many tangled legal questions.⁴⁸

Thus, while the pandemic telemedicine rules may have advanced access to abortion,³⁴ there may be some pending downsides.⁴⁹ States that prohibit abortion will likely include prohibitions on medical abortions. In addition, they may prohibit anyone in the state (including pharmacies) from selling, possessing, or obtaining any drug used for causing or inducing an abortion.⁵⁰ If, for constitutional reasons, they cannot press criminal charges or undertake licensing discipline for prescribing abortion, some states will likely withdraw from telehealth licensing compacts to avoid out-of-state prescriptions. This area of telemedicine has considerable uncertainty.

Continue to: CASE Conclusion...

CASE Conclusion

Patient concerns come to the fore

By 2023, Dr. TM started receiving bad news. Patient D called complaining that after following the advice on the website, she suffered a severe reaction and had to be rushed to an emergency department. Patient E (who had only 1 in-office visit early in her pregnancy) notified the office that she developed very high blood pressure that resulted in severe placental abruption, requiring emergency care and resulting in the loss of the fetus. Patient F complained that someone hacked the TikTok direct message communication with Dr. TM and tried to “blackmail” or harass her.

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F represent potential problems of telemedicine practice. Patient D was injured because she relied on her doctor’s website (to which Dr. TM directed patients). It contained an error that caused an injury. A doctor-patient relationship existed, and bad medical advice likely caused the injury. Physicians providing advice online must ensure the advice is correct and kept current.

Patient E demonstrates the importance of monitoring patients remotely (blood pressure transmitted to the office) or with periodic in-office visits. It is not clear whether she was a no-show for office visits (and whether the office followed up on any missed appointments) or if such visits were never scheduled. Liability for failure to monitor adequately is a possibility.

Patient F’s seemingly minor complaint could be a potential problem. Dr. TM used an insecure mode of communication. Although some HIPAA security regulations were modified or suspended during the pandemic, using such an unsecure platform is problematic, especially if temporary HIPAA rules expired. The outcome of the complaint is in doubt.

Out-of-state practice

Dr. TM treated 3 out-of-state residents (D, E, and F) via telemedicine. Recently Dr. TM received a complaint from the State Medical Licensure Board for practicing medicine without a license (Patient D), followed by similar charges from Patient E’s and Patient F’s state licensing boards. He has received a licensing inquiry from his home state board about those claims of illegal practice in other states and incompetent treatment.

Patient D’s pregnancy did not go well. The 1 in-person visit did not occur and she has filed a malpractice suit against Dr. TM. Patient E is threatening a malpractice case because the STI was not appropriately diagnosed and had advanced before another physician treated it.
 

In addition, a private citizen in Patient F’s state has filed suit against Dr. TM for abetting an illegal abortion (for Patient F).

Discussion. Patients D, E, and F illustrate the risk of even incidental out-of-state practice. The medical board inquiries arose from anonymous tips to all 4 states reporting Dr. TM was “practicing medicine without a license.” Patient E’s home state did have a licensing compact with the adjoining state (ie, Dr. TM’s home state). However, it required physicians to register and file an annual report, which Dr. TM had not done. The other 2 states did not have compacts with Dr. TM’s home state. Thus, he was illegally practicing medicine and would be subject to penalties. His home state also might impose license discipline based on his illegal practice in other states.

Continue to: What’s the verdict?...

What’s the verdict?

Dr. TM’s malpractice carrier is refusing to defend the claims of medical malpractice threatened by Patients D, E, and F. The company first notes that the terms of the malpractice policy specifically exclude the illegal practice of medicine. Furthermore, when a physician legally practices in another state, the policy requires a written notice to the insurance carrier of such practice. Dr. TM will likely have to engage and pay for a malpractice attorney for these cases. Because the claims are filed in 3 different states, more than a home-state attorney will likely be involved in the defense of these cases. Dr. TM will need to pay the attorneys and any damages from a settlement or trial.

Malpractice claims. Patient D claims that the doctor essentially abandoned her by never reaching out to her or arranging an in-person visit. Dr. TM claims the patient was responsible for scheduling the in-person visit. Patient E claims it was malpractice not to determine the specific nature of the STI and to do follow-up testing to determine that it was cured. All patients claim there was no genuine informed consent to the telemedicine. An attorney has warned Dr. TM that it is “not going to look good to the jury” that he was practicing without a license in the state and suggests he settle the cases quickly by paying damages.

Abortion-related claims. Patient F presents a different set of problems. Dr. TM’s home state is “proabortion.” Patient F’s home state is strongly “antiabortion,” making it a felony to participate in, assist, or facilitate an abortion (including medical abortion). Criminal charges have been filed against Dr. TM for the illegal practice of medicine, for aiding and facilitating an abortion, and for failure to notify a parent that a minor is seeking an abortion. For now, Dr. TM’s state is refusing to extradite on the abortion charge. Still, the patient’s state insists that it do so on the illegal practice of medicine charges and new charges of insurance fraud and failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a child. (Under the patient’s state law, anyone having sex with Patient F would have engaged in sexual abuse or “statutory rape,” so the state insists that the fact she was pregnant proves someone had sex with her.)

Patient F’s state also has a statute that allows private citizens to file civil claims against anyone procuring or assisting with an abortion (a successful private citizen can receive a minimum of $10,000 from the defendant). Several citizens from the patient’s state have already filed claims against Dr. TM in his state courts. Only one of them, probably the first to file, could succeed. Courts in the state have issued subpoenas and ordered Dr. TM to appear and reply to the civil suits. If he does not respond, there will be a default judgment.

Dr. TM’s attorney tells him that these lawsuits will not settle and will take a long time to defend and resolve. That will be expensive.

Billing and fraud. Dr. TM’s office recently received a series of notices from private health insurers stating they are investigating previously made payments as being fraudulent (unlicensed). They will not pay any new claims pending the investigation. On behalf of Medicare-Medicaid and other federal programs, the US Attorney’s office has notified Dr. TM that it has opened an investigation into fraudulent federal payments. F’s home state also is filing a (criminal) insurance fraud case, although the basis for it is unclear. (Dr. TM’s attorney believes it might be to increase pressure on the physician’s state to extradite Dr. TM for Patient F’s case.)

In addition, a disgruntled former employee of Dr. TM has filed a federal FCA case against him for filing inflated claims with various federally funded programs. The employee also made whistleblower calls to insurance companies and some state-funded medical programs. A forensic accounting investigation by Dr. TM’s accountant confirmed a pattern of very sloppy records and recurring billing for televisits that did not occur. Dr. TM believes that this was the act of one of the temporary assistants he hired in a pinch, who did not understand the system and just guessed when filing some insurance claims.

During the investigation, the federal and state attorneys are looking into a possible violation of state and federal Anti-Kickback Statutes. This is based on the original offer of a $100 credit for referrals to Dr. TM’s telemedicine practice.

The attorneys are concerned that other legal problems may present themselves. They are thoroughly reviewing Dr. TM’s practice and making several critical but somewhat modest changes to his practice. They also have insisted that Dr. TM have appropriate staff to handle the details of the practice and billing.

Conclusions

Telemedicine presents notable legal challenges to medical practice. As the pandemic status ends, ObGyn physicians practicing telemedicine need to be aware of the rules and how they are changing. For those physicians who want to continue or start a telemedicine practice, securing legal and technical support to ensure your operations are inline with the legal requirements can minimize any risk of legal troubles in the future. ●

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

Dr. Hashemi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Hashemi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Hashemi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A promising personalized vaccine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A promising personalized vaccine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A promising personalized vaccine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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