User login
Expelled from high school, Alister Martin became a Harvard doc
It’s not often that a high school brawl with gang members sets you down a path to becoming a Harvard-trained doctor. But that’s exactly how Alister Martin’s life unfolded.
In retrospect, he should have seen the whole thing coming. That night at the party, his best friend was attacked by a gang member from a nearby high school. Martin was not in a gang but he jumped into the fray to defend his friend.
“I wanted to save the day, but that’s not what happened,” he says. “There were just too many of them.”
When his mother rushed to the hospital, he was so bruised and bloody that she couldn’t recognize him at first. Ever since he was a baby, she had done her best to shield him from the neighborhood where gang violence was a regular disruption. But it hadn’t worked.
“My high school had a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence,” Martin says, “so even though I wasn’t in a gang, I was kicked out.”
Now expelled from high school, his mother wanted him out of town, fearing gang retaliation, or that Martin might seek vengeance on the boy who had brutally beaten him. So, the biology teacher and single mom who worked numerous jobs to keep them afloat, came up with a plan to get him far away from any temptations.
Martin had loved tennis since middle school, when his 8th-grade math teacher, Billie Weise, also a tennis pro, got him a job as a court sweeper at an upscale tennis club nearby. He knew nothing then about tennis but would come to fall in love with the sport. To get her son out of town, Martin’s mother took out loans for $30,000 and sent him to a Florida tennis training camp.
After 6 months of training, Martin, who earned a GED degree while attending the camp, was offered a scholarship to play tennis at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The transition to college was tough, however. He was nervous and felt out of place. “I could have died that first day. It became so obvious how poorly my high school education had prepared me for this.”
But the unease he felt was also motivating in a way. Worried about failure, “he locked himself in a room with another student and they studied day and night,” recalls Kamal Khan, director of the office for diversity and academic success at Rutgers. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
And Martin displayed other attributes that would draw others to him – and later prove important in his career as a doctor. His ability to display empathy and interact with students and teachers separated him from his peers, Mr. Khan says. “There’re a lot of really smart students out there,” he says, “but not many who understand people like Martin.”
After graduating, he decided to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He’d wanted to be a doctor since he was 10 years old after his mom was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. He remembers overhearing a conversation she was having with a family friend about where he would go if she died.
“That’s when I knew it was serious,” he says.
Doctors saved her life, and it’s something he’ll never forget. But it wasn’t until his time at Rutgers that he finally had the confidence to think he could succeed in medical school.
Martin went on to attend Harvard Medical School and Harvard Kennedy School of Government as well as serving as chief resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was also a fellow at the White House in the Office of the Vice President and today, he’s an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston..
He is most at home in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he works as an emergency medical specialist. For him, the ER is the first line of defense for meeting the community’s health needs. Growing up in Neptune, the ER “was where poor folks got their care,” he says. His mom worked two jobs and when she got off work at 8 p.m. there was no pediatrician open. “When I was sick as a kid we always went to the emergency room,” he says.
While at Harvard, he also pursued a degree from the Kennedy School of Government, because of the huge role he feels that politics play in our health care system and especially in bringing care to impoverished communities. And since then he’s taken numerous steps to bridge the gap.
Addiction, for example, became an important issue for Martin, ever since a patient he encountered in his first week as an internist. She was a mom of two who had recently gotten surgery because she broke her ankle falling down the stairs at her child’s daycare, he says. Prescribed oxycodone, she feared she was becoming addicted and needed help. But at the time, there was nothing the ER could do.
“I remember that look in her eyes when we had to turn her away,” he says.
Martin has worked to change protocol at his hospital and others throughout the nation so they can be better set up to treat opioid addiction. He’s the founder of GetWaivered, an organization that trains doctors throughout the country to use evidence-based medicine to manage opioid addiction. In the U.S. doctors need what’s called a DEA X waiver to be able to prescribe buprenorphine to opioid-addicted patients. That means that currently only about 1% of all emergency room doctors nationwide have the waiver and without it, it’s impossible to help patients when they need it the most.
Shuhan He, MD, an internist with Martin at Massachusetts General Hospital who also works on the GetWaivered program, says Martin has a particular trait that helps him be successful.
“He’s a doer and when he sees a problem, he’s gonna try and fix it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s not often that a high school brawl with gang members sets you down a path to becoming a Harvard-trained doctor. But that’s exactly how Alister Martin’s life unfolded.
In retrospect, he should have seen the whole thing coming. That night at the party, his best friend was attacked by a gang member from a nearby high school. Martin was not in a gang but he jumped into the fray to defend his friend.
“I wanted to save the day, but that’s not what happened,” he says. “There were just too many of them.”
When his mother rushed to the hospital, he was so bruised and bloody that she couldn’t recognize him at first. Ever since he was a baby, she had done her best to shield him from the neighborhood where gang violence was a regular disruption. But it hadn’t worked.
“My high school had a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence,” Martin says, “so even though I wasn’t in a gang, I was kicked out.”
Now expelled from high school, his mother wanted him out of town, fearing gang retaliation, or that Martin might seek vengeance on the boy who had brutally beaten him. So, the biology teacher and single mom who worked numerous jobs to keep them afloat, came up with a plan to get him far away from any temptations.
Martin had loved tennis since middle school, when his 8th-grade math teacher, Billie Weise, also a tennis pro, got him a job as a court sweeper at an upscale tennis club nearby. He knew nothing then about tennis but would come to fall in love with the sport. To get her son out of town, Martin’s mother took out loans for $30,000 and sent him to a Florida tennis training camp.
After 6 months of training, Martin, who earned a GED degree while attending the camp, was offered a scholarship to play tennis at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The transition to college was tough, however. He was nervous and felt out of place. “I could have died that first day. It became so obvious how poorly my high school education had prepared me for this.”
But the unease he felt was also motivating in a way. Worried about failure, “he locked himself in a room with another student and they studied day and night,” recalls Kamal Khan, director of the office for diversity and academic success at Rutgers. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
And Martin displayed other attributes that would draw others to him – and later prove important in his career as a doctor. His ability to display empathy and interact with students and teachers separated him from his peers, Mr. Khan says. “There’re a lot of really smart students out there,” he says, “but not many who understand people like Martin.”
After graduating, he decided to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He’d wanted to be a doctor since he was 10 years old after his mom was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. He remembers overhearing a conversation she was having with a family friend about where he would go if she died.
“That’s when I knew it was serious,” he says.
Doctors saved her life, and it’s something he’ll never forget. But it wasn’t until his time at Rutgers that he finally had the confidence to think he could succeed in medical school.
Martin went on to attend Harvard Medical School and Harvard Kennedy School of Government as well as serving as chief resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was also a fellow at the White House in the Office of the Vice President and today, he’s an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston..
He is most at home in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he works as an emergency medical specialist. For him, the ER is the first line of defense for meeting the community’s health needs. Growing up in Neptune, the ER “was where poor folks got their care,” he says. His mom worked two jobs and when she got off work at 8 p.m. there was no pediatrician open. “When I was sick as a kid we always went to the emergency room,” he says.
While at Harvard, he also pursued a degree from the Kennedy School of Government, because of the huge role he feels that politics play in our health care system and especially in bringing care to impoverished communities. And since then he’s taken numerous steps to bridge the gap.
Addiction, for example, became an important issue for Martin, ever since a patient he encountered in his first week as an internist. She was a mom of two who had recently gotten surgery because she broke her ankle falling down the stairs at her child’s daycare, he says. Prescribed oxycodone, she feared she was becoming addicted and needed help. But at the time, there was nothing the ER could do.
“I remember that look in her eyes when we had to turn her away,” he says.
Martin has worked to change protocol at his hospital and others throughout the nation so they can be better set up to treat opioid addiction. He’s the founder of GetWaivered, an organization that trains doctors throughout the country to use evidence-based medicine to manage opioid addiction. In the U.S. doctors need what’s called a DEA X waiver to be able to prescribe buprenorphine to opioid-addicted patients. That means that currently only about 1% of all emergency room doctors nationwide have the waiver and without it, it’s impossible to help patients when they need it the most.
Shuhan He, MD, an internist with Martin at Massachusetts General Hospital who also works on the GetWaivered program, says Martin has a particular trait that helps him be successful.
“He’s a doer and when he sees a problem, he’s gonna try and fix it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s not often that a high school brawl with gang members sets you down a path to becoming a Harvard-trained doctor. But that’s exactly how Alister Martin’s life unfolded.
In retrospect, he should have seen the whole thing coming. That night at the party, his best friend was attacked by a gang member from a nearby high school. Martin was not in a gang but he jumped into the fray to defend his friend.
“I wanted to save the day, but that’s not what happened,” he says. “There were just too many of them.”
When his mother rushed to the hospital, he was so bruised and bloody that she couldn’t recognize him at first. Ever since he was a baby, she had done her best to shield him from the neighborhood where gang violence was a regular disruption. But it hadn’t worked.
“My high school had a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence,” Martin says, “so even though I wasn’t in a gang, I was kicked out.”
Now expelled from high school, his mother wanted him out of town, fearing gang retaliation, or that Martin might seek vengeance on the boy who had brutally beaten him. So, the biology teacher and single mom who worked numerous jobs to keep them afloat, came up with a plan to get him far away from any temptations.
Martin had loved tennis since middle school, when his 8th-grade math teacher, Billie Weise, also a tennis pro, got him a job as a court sweeper at an upscale tennis club nearby. He knew nothing then about tennis but would come to fall in love with the sport. To get her son out of town, Martin’s mother took out loans for $30,000 and sent him to a Florida tennis training camp.
After 6 months of training, Martin, who earned a GED degree while attending the camp, was offered a scholarship to play tennis at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The transition to college was tough, however. He was nervous and felt out of place. “I could have died that first day. It became so obvious how poorly my high school education had prepared me for this.”
But the unease he felt was also motivating in a way. Worried about failure, “he locked himself in a room with another student and they studied day and night,” recalls Kamal Khan, director of the office for diversity and academic success at Rutgers. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
And Martin displayed other attributes that would draw others to him – and later prove important in his career as a doctor. His ability to display empathy and interact with students and teachers separated him from his peers, Mr. Khan says. “There’re a lot of really smart students out there,” he says, “but not many who understand people like Martin.”
After graduating, he decided to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He’d wanted to be a doctor since he was 10 years old after his mom was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. He remembers overhearing a conversation she was having with a family friend about where he would go if she died.
“That’s when I knew it was serious,” he says.
Doctors saved her life, and it’s something he’ll never forget. But it wasn’t until his time at Rutgers that he finally had the confidence to think he could succeed in medical school.
Martin went on to attend Harvard Medical School and Harvard Kennedy School of Government as well as serving as chief resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was also a fellow at the White House in the Office of the Vice President and today, he’s an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston..
He is most at home in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he works as an emergency medical specialist. For him, the ER is the first line of defense for meeting the community’s health needs. Growing up in Neptune, the ER “was where poor folks got their care,” he says. His mom worked two jobs and when she got off work at 8 p.m. there was no pediatrician open. “When I was sick as a kid we always went to the emergency room,” he says.
While at Harvard, he also pursued a degree from the Kennedy School of Government, because of the huge role he feels that politics play in our health care system and especially in bringing care to impoverished communities. And since then he’s taken numerous steps to bridge the gap.
Addiction, for example, became an important issue for Martin, ever since a patient he encountered in his first week as an internist. She was a mom of two who had recently gotten surgery because she broke her ankle falling down the stairs at her child’s daycare, he says. Prescribed oxycodone, she feared she was becoming addicted and needed help. But at the time, there was nothing the ER could do.
“I remember that look in her eyes when we had to turn her away,” he says.
Martin has worked to change protocol at his hospital and others throughout the nation so they can be better set up to treat opioid addiction. He’s the founder of GetWaivered, an organization that trains doctors throughout the country to use evidence-based medicine to manage opioid addiction. In the U.S. doctors need what’s called a DEA X waiver to be able to prescribe buprenorphine to opioid-addicted patients. That means that currently only about 1% of all emergency room doctors nationwide have the waiver and without it, it’s impossible to help patients when they need it the most.
Shuhan He, MD, an internist with Martin at Massachusetts General Hospital who also works on the GetWaivered program, says Martin has a particular trait that helps him be successful.
“He’s a doer and when he sees a problem, he’s gonna try and fix it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Joint effort: CBD not just innocent bystander in weed
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
I visited a legal cannabis dispensary in Massachusetts a few years ago, mostly to see what the hype was about. There I was, knowing basically nothing about pot, as the gentle stoner behind the counter explained to me the differences between the various strains. Acapulco Gold is buoyant and energizing; Purple Kush is sleepy, relaxed, dissociative. Here’s a strain that makes you feel nostalgic; here’s one that helps you focus. It was as complicated and as oddly specific as a fancy wine tasting – and, I had a feeling, about as reliable.
It’s a plant, after all, and though delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical responsible for its euphoric effects, it is far from the only substance in there.
The second most important compound in cannabis is cannabidiol, and most people will tell you that CBD is the gentle yin to THC’s paranoiac yang. Hence your local ganja barista reminding you that, if you don›t want all those anxiety-inducing side effects of THC, grab a strain with a nice CBD balance.
But is it true? A new study appearing in JAMA Network Open suggests, in fact, that it’s quite the opposite. This study is from Austin Zamarripa and colleagues, who clearly sit at the researcher cool kids table.
Eighteen adults who had abstained from marijuana use for at least a month participated in this trial (which is way more fun than anything we do in my lab at Yale). In random order, separated by at least a week, they ate some special brownies.
Condition one was a control brownie, condition two was a brownie containing 20 mg of THC, and condition three was a brownie containing 20 mg of THC and 640 mg of CBD. Participants were assigned each condition in random order, separated by at least a week.
A side note on doses for those of you who, like me, are not totally weed literate. A dose of 20 mg of THC is about a third of what you might find in a typical joint these days (though it’s about double the THC content of a joint in the ‘70s – I believe the technical term is “doobie”). And 640 mg of CBD is a decent dose, as 5 mg per kilogram is what some folks start with to achieve therapeutic effects.
Both THC and CBD interact with the cytochrome p450 system in the liver. This matters when you’re ingesting them instead of smoking them because you have first-pass metabolism to contend with. And, because of that p450 inhibition, it’s possible that CBD might actually increase the amount of THC that gets into your bloodstream from the brownie, or gummy, or pizza sauce, or whatever.
Let’s get to the results, starting with blood THC concentration. It’s not subtle. With CBD on board the THC concentration rises higher faster, with roughly double the area under the curve.
And, unsurprisingly, the subjective experience correlated with those higher levels. Individuals rated the “drug effect” higher with the combo. But, interestingly, the “pleasant” drug effect didn’t change much, while the unpleasant effects were substantially higher. No mitigation of THC anxiety here – quite the opposite. CBD made the anxiety worse.
Cognitive effects were equally profound. Scores on a digit symbol substitution test and a paced serial addition task were all substantially worse when CBD was mixed with THC.
And for those of you who want some more objective measures, check out the heart rate. Despite the purported “calming” nature of CBD, heart rates were way higher when individuals were exposed to both chemicals.
The picture here is quite clear, though the mechanism is not. At least when talking edibles, CBD enhances the effects of THC, and not necessarily for the better. It may be that CBD is competing with some of the proteins that metabolize THC, thus prolonging its effects. CBD may also directly inhibit those enzymes. But whatever the case, I think we can safely say the myth that CBD makes the effects of THC more mild or more tolerable is busted.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
I visited a legal cannabis dispensary in Massachusetts a few years ago, mostly to see what the hype was about. There I was, knowing basically nothing about pot, as the gentle stoner behind the counter explained to me the differences between the various strains. Acapulco Gold is buoyant and energizing; Purple Kush is sleepy, relaxed, dissociative. Here’s a strain that makes you feel nostalgic; here’s one that helps you focus. It was as complicated and as oddly specific as a fancy wine tasting – and, I had a feeling, about as reliable.
It’s a plant, after all, and though delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical responsible for its euphoric effects, it is far from the only substance in there.
The second most important compound in cannabis is cannabidiol, and most people will tell you that CBD is the gentle yin to THC’s paranoiac yang. Hence your local ganja barista reminding you that, if you don›t want all those anxiety-inducing side effects of THC, grab a strain with a nice CBD balance.
But is it true? A new study appearing in JAMA Network Open suggests, in fact, that it’s quite the opposite. This study is from Austin Zamarripa and colleagues, who clearly sit at the researcher cool kids table.
Eighteen adults who had abstained from marijuana use for at least a month participated in this trial (which is way more fun than anything we do in my lab at Yale). In random order, separated by at least a week, they ate some special brownies.
Condition one was a control brownie, condition two was a brownie containing 20 mg of THC, and condition three was a brownie containing 20 mg of THC and 640 mg of CBD. Participants were assigned each condition in random order, separated by at least a week.
A side note on doses for those of you who, like me, are not totally weed literate. A dose of 20 mg of THC is about a third of what you might find in a typical joint these days (though it’s about double the THC content of a joint in the ‘70s – I believe the technical term is “doobie”). And 640 mg of CBD is a decent dose, as 5 mg per kilogram is what some folks start with to achieve therapeutic effects.
Both THC and CBD interact with the cytochrome p450 system in the liver. This matters when you’re ingesting them instead of smoking them because you have first-pass metabolism to contend with. And, because of that p450 inhibition, it’s possible that CBD might actually increase the amount of THC that gets into your bloodstream from the brownie, or gummy, or pizza sauce, or whatever.
Let’s get to the results, starting with blood THC concentration. It’s not subtle. With CBD on board the THC concentration rises higher faster, with roughly double the area under the curve.
And, unsurprisingly, the subjective experience correlated with those higher levels. Individuals rated the “drug effect” higher with the combo. But, interestingly, the “pleasant” drug effect didn’t change much, while the unpleasant effects were substantially higher. No mitigation of THC anxiety here – quite the opposite. CBD made the anxiety worse.
Cognitive effects were equally profound. Scores on a digit symbol substitution test and a paced serial addition task were all substantially worse when CBD was mixed with THC.
And for those of you who want some more objective measures, check out the heart rate. Despite the purported “calming” nature of CBD, heart rates were way higher when individuals were exposed to both chemicals.
The picture here is quite clear, though the mechanism is not. At least when talking edibles, CBD enhances the effects of THC, and not necessarily for the better. It may be that CBD is competing with some of the proteins that metabolize THC, thus prolonging its effects. CBD may also directly inhibit those enzymes. But whatever the case, I think we can safely say the myth that CBD makes the effects of THC more mild or more tolerable is busted.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
I visited a legal cannabis dispensary in Massachusetts a few years ago, mostly to see what the hype was about. There I was, knowing basically nothing about pot, as the gentle stoner behind the counter explained to me the differences between the various strains. Acapulco Gold is buoyant and energizing; Purple Kush is sleepy, relaxed, dissociative. Here’s a strain that makes you feel nostalgic; here’s one that helps you focus. It was as complicated and as oddly specific as a fancy wine tasting – and, I had a feeling, about as reliable.
It’s a plant, after all, and though delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical responsible for its euphoric effects, it is far from the only substance in there.
The second most important compound in cannabis is cannabidiol, and most people will tell you that CBD is the gentle yin to THC’s paranoiac yang. Hence your local ganja barista reminding you that, if you don›t want all those anxiety-inducing side effects of THC, grab a strain with a nice CBD balance.
But is it true? A new study appearing in JAMA Network Open suggests, in fact, that it’s quite the opposite. This study is from Austin Zamarripa and colleagues, who clearly sit at the researcher cool kids table.
Eighteen adults who had abstained from marijuana use for at least a month participated in this trial (which is way more fun than anything we do in my lab at Yale). In random order, separated by at least a week, they ate some special brownies.
Condition one was a control brownie, condition two was a brownie containing 20 mg of THC, and condition three was a brownie containing 20 mg of THC and 640 mg of CBD. Participants were assigned each condition in random order, separated by at least a week.
A side note on doses for those of you who, like me, are not totally weed literate. A dose of 20 mg of THC is about a third of what you might find in a typical joint these days (though it’s about double the THC content of a joint in the ‘70s – I believe the technical term is “doobie”). And 640 mg of CBD is a decent dose, as 5 mg per kilogram is what some folks start with to achieve therapeutic effects.
Both THC and CBD interact with the cytochrome p450 system in the liver. This matters when you’re ingesting them instead of smoking them because you have first-pass metabolism to contend with. And, because of that p450 inhibition, it’s possible that CBD might actually increase the amount of THC that gets into your bloodstream from the brownie, or gummy, or pizza sauce, or whatever.
Let’s get to the results, starting with blood THC concentration. It’s not subtle. With CBD on board the THC concentration rises higher faster, with roughly double the area under the curve.
And, unsurprisingly, the subjective experience correlated with those higher levels. Individuals rated the “drug effect” higher with the combo. But, interestingly, the “pleasant” drug effect didn’t change much, while the unpleasant effects were substantially higher. No mitigation of THC anxiety here – quite the opposite. CBD made the anxiety worse.
Cognitive effects were equally profound. Scores on a digit symbol substitution test and a paced serial addition task were all substantially worse when CBD was mixed with THC.
And for those of you who want some more objective measures, check out the heart rate. Despite the purported “calming” nature of CBD, heart rates were way higher when individuals were exposed to both chemicals.
The picture here is quite clear, though the mechanism is not. At least when talking edibles, CBD enhances the effects of THC, and not necessarily for the better. It may be that CBD is competing with some of the proteins that metabolize THC, thus prolonging its effects. CBD may also directly inhibit those enzymes. But whatever the case, I think we can safely say the myth that CBD makes the effects of THC more mild or more tolerable is busted.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New challenge for docs: End of COVID federal public health emergency
The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.
A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.
The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.
The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.
Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.
The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”
The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
Patients’ questions
Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).
“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”
Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.
For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.
“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.
States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.
The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.
In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients
The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.
After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.
But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).
People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.
“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
Future FDA actions
Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.
But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.
The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.
The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.
The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.
“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.
Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.
“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.
A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.
The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.
The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.
Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.
The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”
The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
Patients’ questions
Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).
“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”
Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.
For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.
“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.
States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.
The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.
In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients
The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.
After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.
But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).
People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.
“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
Future FDA actions
Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.
But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.
The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.
The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.
The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.
“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.
Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.
“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.
A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.
The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.
The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.
Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.
The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”
The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
Patients’ questions
Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).
“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”
Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.
For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.
“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.
States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.
The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.
In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients
The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.
After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.
But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).
People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.
“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
Future FDA actions
Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.
But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.
The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.
The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.
The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.
“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.
Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.
“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is increasing
John Whyte, MD: Hello, I’m Dr. John Whyte, the Chief Medical Officer of WebMD. One of those cancers was pancreatic cancer, which historically has had a very low survival rate. What’s going on here? Are we doing better with diagnosis, treatment, a combination?
Joining me today is Dr. Lynn Matrisian. She is PanCAN’s chief science officer. Dr. Matrisian, thanks for joining me today. It’s great to see you.
Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA: Great to be here. Thank you.
Dr. Whyte: Well, tell me what your first reaction was when you saw the recent data from the American Cancer Society. What one word would you use?
Dr. Matrisian: Hopeful. I think hopeful in general that survival rates are increasing, not for all cancers, but for many cancers. We continue to make progress. Research is making a difference. And we’re making progress against cancer in general.
Dr. Whyte: You’re passionate, as our viewers know, about pancreatic cancer. And that’s been one of the hardest cancers to treat, and one of the lowest survival rates. But there’s some encouraging news that we saw, didn’t we?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. So the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer went up a whole percentage. It’s at 12% now. And what’s really good is it was at 11% last year. It was at 10% the year before. So that’s 2 years in a row that we’ve had an increase in the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer. So we’re hopeful that’s a trajectory that we can really capitalize on is how fast we’re making progress in this disease.
Dr. Whyte: I want to put it into context, Lynn. Because some people might be thinking, 1%? Like you’re excited about 1%? That doesn’t seem that much. But correct me if I’m wrong. A one percentage point increase means 641 more loved ones will enjoy life’s moments, as you put it, 5 years after their diagnosis that otherwise wouldn’t have. What does that practically mean to viewers?
Dr. Matrisian: That means that more than 600 people in the United States will hug a loved one 5 years after that diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. It is a very deadly disease. But we’re going to, by continuing to make progress, it gives those moments to those people. And it means that we’re making progress against the disease in general.
Dr. Whyte: So even 1%, and 1% each year, does have value.
Dr. Matrisian: It has a lot of value.
Dr. Whyte: What’s driving this improvement? Is it better screening? And we’re not so great still in screening a pancreatic cancer. Is it the innovation in cancer treatments? What do you think is accounting for what we hope is this trajectory of increases in 5-year survival?
Dr. Matrisian: Right, so the nice thing the reason that we like looking at 5-year survival rates is because it takes into account all of those things. And we have actually made progress in all of those things. So by looking at those that are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in general as a whole, and looking at their survival, we are looking at better treatments. People who are getting pancreatic cancer later are living longer as a result of better treatments.
But it’s not just that. It’s also, if you’re diagnosed earlier, your 5-year survival rate is higher. More people who are diagnosed early live to five years than those that are diagnosed later. So within that statistic, there are more people who are diagnosed earlier. And those people also live longer. So it takes into account all of those things, which is why we really like to look at that five-year survival rate for a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: Where are we on screening? Because we always want to catch people early. That gives them that greatest chance of survival. Have we made much improvements there? And if we have, what are they?
Dr. Matrisian: Well we have made improvements there are more people that are now diagnosed with localized disease than there were 20 years ago. So that is increasing. And we’re still doing it really by being aware of the symptoms right now. Being aware that kind of chronic indigestion, lower back pain that won’t go away, these are signs and symptoms. And especially things like jaundice ...
Dr. Whyte: That yellow color that they might see.
Dr. Matrisian: Yes, that yellow colors in your eye, that’s a really important symptom that would certainly send people to the doctor in order to look at this. So some of it is being more aware and finding the disease earlier. But what we’re really hoping for is some sort of blood test or some sort of other way of looking through medical records and identifying those people that need to go and be checked.
Dr. Whyte: Now we chatted about that almost two years ago. So tell me the progress that we’ve made. How are we doing?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah, well there’s a number of companies now that have blood tests that are available. They still need more work. They still need more studies to really understand how good they are at finding pancreatic cancer early. But we didn’t have them a couple of years ago. And so it’s really a very exciting time in the field, that there’s companies that were taking advantage of research for many years and actually turning it into a commercial product that is available for people to check.
Dr. Whyte: And then what about treatments? More treatment options today than there were just a few years ago, but still a lot of progress to be made. So when we talk about even 12% 5-year survival, we’d love to see it much more. And you talk about, I don’t want to misquote, so correct me if I’m wrong. Your goal is 20%. Five-year survival by 2030. That’s not too far. So, Lynn, how are we going to get there?
Dr. Matrisian: Okay, well this is our mission. And that’s exactly our goal, 20% by 2030. So we’ve got some work to do. And we are working at both fronts. You’re right, we need better treatments. And so we’ve set up a clinical trial platform where we can look at a lot of different treatments much more efficiently, much faster, kind of taking advantage of an infrastructure to do that. And that’s called Precision Promise. And we’re excited about that as a way to get new treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer.
And then we’re also working on the early detection end. We think an important symptom of pancreatic cancer that isn’t often recognized is new onset diabetes, sudden diabetes in those over 50 where that person did not have diabetes before. So it’s new, looks like type 2 diabetes, but it’s actually caused by pancreatic cancer.
And so we have an initiative, The Early Detection Initiative, that is taking advantage of that. And seeing if we image people right away based on that symptom, can we find pancreatic cancer early? So we think it’s important to look both at trying to diagnose it earlier, as well as trying to treat it better for advanced disease.
Dr. Whyte: Yeah. You know, at WebMD we’re always trying to empower people with better information so they can also become advocates for their health. You’re an expert in advocacy on pancreatic cancer. So what’s your advice to listeners as to how they become good advocates for themselves or advocates in general for loved ones who have pancreatic cancer?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well certainly, knowledge is power. And so the real thing to do is to call the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. This is what we do. We stay up on the most current information. We have very experienced case managers who can help navigate the complexities of pancreatic cancer at every stage of the journey.
Or if you have questions about pancreatic cancer, call PanCAN. Go to PanCAN.org and give us a call. Because it’s really that knowledge, knowing what it is that you need to get more knowledge about, how to advocate for yourself is very important in a disease, in any disease, but in particular a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: And I don’t want to dismiss the progress that we’ve made, that you’ve just referenced in terms of the increased survival. But there’s still a long way to go. We need a lot more dollars for research. We need a lot more clinical trials to take place. What’s your message to a viewer who’s been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer or a loved one? What’s your message, Lynn, today for them?
Dr. Matrisian: Well, first, get as much knowledge as you can. Call PanCAN, and let us help you help your loved one. But then help us. Let’s do research. Let’s do more research. Let’s understand this disease better so we can make those kinds of progress in both treatment and early detection.
And PanCAN works very hard at understanding the disease and setting up research programs that are going to make a difference, that are going to get us to that aggressive goal of 20% survival by 2030. So there is a lot of things that can be done, raise awareness to your friends and neighbors about the disease, lots of things that will help this whole field.
Dr. Whyte: What’s your feeling on second opinions? Given that this can be a difficult cancer to treat, given that there’s emerging therapies that are always developing, when you have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, is it important to consider getting a second opinion?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. Yes, it is. And our case managers will help with that process. We do think it’s important.
Dr. Whyte: Because sometimes, Lynn, people just want to get started, right? Get it out of me. Get treatment. And sometimes getting a second opinion, doing some genomic testing can take time. So what’s your response to that?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well we say, your care team is very important. Who is on your care team, and it may take a little time to find the right people on your care team. But that is an incredibly important step. Sometimes it’s not just one person. Sometimes you need more than one doctor, more than one nurse, more than one type of specialty to help you deal with this. And taking the time to do that is incredibly important.
Yes, you need to – you do need to act. But act smart. And do it with knowledge. Do it really understanding what your options are, and advocate for yourself.
Dr. Whyte: And surround yourself as you reference with that right care team for you, because that’s the most important thing when you have any type of cancer diagnosis. Dr. Lynn Matrisian, I want to thank you for taking time today.
Dr. Matrisian: Thank you so much, John.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
John Whyte, MD: Hello, I’m Dr. John Whyte, the Chief Medical Officer of WebMD. One of those cancers was pancreatic cancer, which historically has had a very low survival rate. What’s going on here? Are we doing better with diagnosis, treatment, a combination?
Joining me today is Dr. Lynn Matrisian. She is PanCAN’s chief science officer. Dr. Matrisian, thanks for joining me today. It’s great to see you.
Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA: Great to be here. Thank you.
Dr. Whyte: Well, tell me what your first reaction was when you saw the recent data from the American Cancer Society. What one word would you use?
Dr. Matrisian: Hopeful. I think hopeful in general that survival rates are increasing, not for all cancers, but for many cancers. We continue to make progress. Research is making a difference. And we’re making progress against cancer in general.
Dr. Whyte: You’re passionate, as our viewers know, about pancreatic cancer. And that’s been one of the hardest cancers to treat, and one of the lowest survival rates. But there’s some encouraging news that we saw, didn’t we?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. So the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer went up a whole percentage. It’s at 12% now. And what’s really good is it was at 11% last year. It was at 10% the year before. So that’s 2 years in a row that we’ve had an increase in the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer. So we’re hopeful that’s a trajectory that we can really capitalize on is how fast we’re making progress in this disease.
Dr. Whyte: I want to put it into context, Lynn. Because some people might be thinking, 1%? Like you’re excited about 1%? That doesn’t seem that much. But correct me if I’m wrong. A one percentage point increase means 641 more loved ones will enjoy life’s moments, as you put it, 5 years after their diagnosis that otherwise wouldn’t have. What does that practically mean to viewers?
Dr. Matrisian: That means that more than 600 people in the United States will hug a loved one 5 years after that diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. It is a very deadly disease. But we’re going to, by continuing to make progress, it gives those moments to those people. And it means that we’re making progress against the disease in general.
Dr. Whyte: So even 1%, and 1% each year, does have value.
Dr. Matrisian: It has a lot of value.
Dr. Whyte: What’s driving this improvement? Is it better screening? And we’re not so great still in screening a pancreatic cancer. Is it the innovation in cancer treatments? What do you think is accounting for what we hope is this trajectory of increases in 5-year survival?
Dr. Matrisian: Right, so the nice thing the reason that we like looking at 5-year survival rates is because it takes into account all of those things. And we have actually made progress in all of those things. So by looking at those that are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in general as a whole, and looking at their survival, we are looking at better treatments. People who are getting pancreatic cancer later are living longer as a result of better treatments.
But it’s not just that. It’s also, if you’re diagnosed earlier, your 5-year survival rate is higher. More people who are diagnosed early live to five years than those that are diagnosed later. So within that statistic, there are more people who are diagnosed earlier. And those people also live longer. So it takes into account all of those things, which is why we really like to look at that five-year survival rate for a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: Where are we on screening? Because we always want to catch people early. That gives them that greatest chance of survival. Have we made much improvements there? And if we have, what are they?
Dr. Matrisian: Well we have made improvements there are more people that are now diagnosed with localized disease than there were 20 years ago. So that is increasing. And we’re still doing it really by being aware of the symptoms right now. Being aware that kind of chronic indigestion, lower back pain that won’t go away, these are signs and symptoms. And especially things like jaundice ...
Dr. Whyte: That yellow color that they might see.
Dr. Matrisian: Yes, that yellow colors in your eye, that’s a really important symptom that would certainly send people to the doctor in order to look at this. So some of it is being more aware and finding the disease earlier. But what we’re really hoping for is some sort of blood test or some sort of other way of looking through medical records and identifying those people that need to go and be checked.
Dr. Whyte: Now we chatted about that almost two years ago. So tell me the progress that we’ve made. How are we doing?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah, well there’s a number of companies now that have blood tests that are available. They still need more work. They still need more studies to really understand how good they are at finding pancreatic cancer early. But we didn’t have them a couple of years ago. And so it’s really a very exciting time in the field, that there’s companies that were taking advantage of research for many years and actually turning it into a commercial product that is available for people to check.
Dr. Whyte: And then what about treatments? More treatment options today than there were just a few years ago, but still a lot of progress to be made. So when we talk about even 12% 5-year survival, we’d love to see it much more. And you talk about, I don’t want to misquote, so correct me if I’m wrong. Your goal is 20%. Five-year survival by 2030. That’s not too far. So, Lynn, how are we going to get there?
Dr. Matrisian: Okay, well this is our mission. And that’s exactly our goal, 20% by 2030. So we’ve got some work to do. And we are working at both fronts. You’re right, we need better treatments. And so we’ve set up a clinical trial platform where we can look at a lot of different treatments much more efficiently, much faster, kind of taking advantage of an infrastructure to do that. And that’s called Precision Promise. And we’re excited about that as a way to get new treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer.
And then we’re also working on the early detection end. We think an important symptom of pancreatic cancer that isn’t often recognized is new onset diabetes, sudden diabetes in those over 50 where that person did not have diabetes before. So it’s new, looks like type 2 diabetes, but it’s actually caused by pancreatic cancer.
And so we have an initiative, The Early Detection Initiative, that is taking advantage of that. And seeing if we image people right away based on that symptom, can we find pancreatic cancer early? So we think it’s important to look both at trying to diagnose it earlier, as well as trying to treat it better for advanced disease.
Dr. Whyte: Yeah. You know, at WebMD we’re always trying to empower people with better information so they can also become advocates for their health. You’re an expert in advocacy on pancreatic cancer. So what’s your advice to listeners as to how they become good advocates for themselves or advocates in general for loved ones who have pancreatic cancer?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well certainly, knowledge is power. And so the real thing to do is to call the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. This is what we do. We stay up on the most current information. We have very experienced case managers who can help navigate the complexities of pancreatic cancer at every stage of the journey.
Or if you have questions about pancreatic cancer, call PanCAN. Go to PanCAN.org and give us a call. Because it’s really that knowledge, knowing what it is that you need to get more knowledge about, how to advocate for yourself is very important in a disease, in any disease, but in particular a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: And I don’t want to dismiss the progress that we’ve made, that you’ve just referenced in terms of the increased survival. But there’s still a long way to go. We need a lot more dollars for research. We need a lot more clinical trials to take place. What’s your message to a viewer who’s been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer or a loved one? What’s your message, Lynn, today for them?
Dr. Matrisian: Well, first, get as much knowledge as you can. Call PanCAN, and let us help you help your loved one. But then help us. Let’s do research. Let’s do more research. Let’s understand this disease better so we can make those kinds of progress in both treatment and early detection.
And PanCAN works very hard at understanding the disease and setting up research programs that are going to make a difference, that are going to get us to that aggressive goal of 20% survival by 2030. So there is a lot of things that can be done, raise awareness to your friends and neighbors about the disease, lots of things that will help this whole field.
Dr. Whyte: What’s your feeling on second opinions? Given that this can be a difficult cancer to treat, given that there’s emerging therapies that are always developing, when you have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, is it important to consider getting a second opinion?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. Yes, it is. And our case managers will help with that process. We do think it’s important.
Dr. Whyte: Because sometimes, Lynn, people just want to get started, right? Get it out of me. Get treatment. And sometimes getting a second opinion, doing some genomic testing can take time. So what’s your response to that?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well we say, your care team is very important. Who is on your care team, and it may take a little time to find the right people on your care team. But that is an incredibly important step. Sometimes it’s not just one person. Sometimes you need more than one doctor, more than one nurse, more than one type of specialty to help you deal with this. And taking the time to do that is incredibly important.
Yes, you need to – you do need to act. But act smart. And do it with knowledge. Do it really understanding what your options are, and advocate for yourself.
Dr. Whyte: And surround yourself as you reference with that right care team for you, because that’s the most important thing when you have any type of cancer diagnosis. Dr. Lynn Matrisian, I want to thank you for taking time today.
Dr. Matrisian: Thank you so much, John.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
John Whyte, MD: Hello, I’m Dr. John Whyte, the Chief Medical Officer of WebMD. One of those cancers was pancreatic cancer, which historically has had a very low survival rate. What’s going on here? Are we doing better with diagnosis, treatment, a combination?
Joining me today is Dr. Lynn Matrisian. She is PanCAN’s chief science officer. Dr. Matrisian, thanks for joining me today. It’s great to see you.
Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA: Great to be here. Thank you.
Dr. Whyte: Well, tell me what your first reaction was when you saw the recent data from the American Cancer Society. What one word would you use?
Dr. Matrisian: Hopeful. I think hopeful in general that survival rates are increasing, not for all cancers, but for many cancers. We continue to make progress. Research is making a difference. And we’re making progress against cancer in general.
Dr. Whyte: You’re passionate, as our viewers know, about pancreatic cancer. And that’s been one of the hardest cancers to treat, and one of the lowest survival rates. But there’s some encouraging news that we saw, didn’t we?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. So the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer went up a whole percentage. It’s at 12% now. And what’s really good is it was at 11% last year. It was at 10% the year before. So that’s 2 years in a row that we’ve had an increase in the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer. So we’re hopeful that’s a trajectory that we can really capitalize on is how fast we’re making progress in this disease.
Dr. Whyte: I want to put it into context, Lynn. Because some people might be thinking, 1%? Like you’re excited about 1%? That doesn’t seem that much. But correct me if I’m wrong. A one percentage point increase means 641 more loved ones will enjoy life’s moments, as you put it, 5 years after their diagnosis that otherwise wouldn’t have. What does that practically mean to viewers?
Dr. Matrisian: That means that more than 600 people in the United States will hug a loved one 5 years after that diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. It is a very deadly disease. But we’re going to, by continuing to make progress, it gives those moments to those people. And it means that we’re making progress against the disease in general.
Dr. Whyte: So even 1%, and 1% each year, does have value.
Dr. Matrisian: It has a lot of value.
Dr. Whyte: What’s driving this improvement? Is it better screening? And we’re not so great still in screening a pancreatic cancer. Is it the innovation in cancer treatments? What do you think is accounting for what we hope is this trajectory of increases in 5-year survival?
Dr. Matrisian: Right, so the nice thing the reason that we like looking at 5-year survival rates is because it takes into account all of those things. And we have actually made progress in all of those things. So by looking at those that are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in general as a whole, and looking at their survival, we are looking at better treatments. People who are getting pancreatic cancer later are living longer as a result of better treatments.
But it’s not just that. It’s also, if you’re diagnosed earlier, your 5-year survival rate is higher. More people who are diagnosed early live to five years than those that are diagnosed later. So within that statistic, there are more people who are diagnosed earlier. And those people also live longer. So it takes into account all of those things, which is why we really like to look at that five-year survival rate for a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: Where are we on screening? Because we always want to catch people early. That gives them that greatest chance of survival. Have we made much improvements there? And if we have, what are they?
Dr. Matrisian: Well we have made improvements there are more people that are now diagnosed with localized disease than there were 20 years ago. So that is increasing. And we’re still doing it really by being aware of the symptoms right now. Being aware that kind of chronic indigestion, lower back pain that won’t go away, these are signs and symptoms. And especially things like jaundice ...
Dr. Whyte: That yellow color that they might see.
Dr. Matrisian: Yes, that yellow colors in your eye, that’s a really important symptom that would certainly send people to the doctor in order to look at this. So some of it is being more aware and finding the disease earlier. But what we’re really hoping for is some sort of blood test or some sort of other way of looking through medical records and identifying those people that need to go and be checked.
Dr. Whyte: Now we chatted about that almost two years ago. So tell me the progress that we’ve made. How are we doing?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah, well there’s a number of companies now that have blood tests that are available. They still need more work. They still need more studies to really understand how good they are at finding pancreatic cancer early. But we didn’t have them a couple of years ago. And so it’s really a very exciting time in the field, that there’s companies that were taking advantage of research for many years and actually turning it into a commercial product that is available for people to check.
Dr. Whyte: And then what about treatments? More treatment options today than there were just a few years ago, but still a lot of progress to be made. So when we talk about even 12% 5-year survival, we’d love to see it much more. And you talk about, I don’t want to misquote, so correct me if I’m wrong. Your goal is 20%. Five-year survival by 2030. That’s not too far. So, Lynn, how are we going to get there?
Dr. Matrisian: Okay, well this is our mission. And that’s exactly our goal, 20% by 2030. So we’ve got some work to do. And we are working at both fronts. You’re right, we need better treatments. And so we’ve set up a clinical trial platform where we can look at a lot of different treatments much more efficiently, much faster, kind of taking advantage of an infrastructure to do that. And that’s called Precision Promise. And we’re excited about that as a way to get new treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer.
And then we’re also working on the early detection end. We think an important symptom of pancreatic cancer that isn’t often recognized is new onset diabetes, sudden diabetes in those over 50 where that person did not have diabetes before. So it’s new, looks like type 2 diabetes, but it’s actually caused by pancreatic cancer.
And so we have an initiative, The Early Detection Initiative, that is taking advantage of that. And seeing if we image people right away based on that symptom, can we find pancreatic cancer early? So we think it’s important to look both at trying to diagnose it earlier, as well as trying to treat it better for advanced disease.
Dr. Whyte: Yeah. You know, at WebMD we’re always trying to empower people with better information so they can also become advocates for their health. You’re an expert in advocacy on pancreatic cancer. So what’s your advice to listeners as to how they become good advocates for themselves or advocates in general for loved ones who have pancreatic cancer?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well certainly, knowledge is power. And so the real thing to do is to call the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. This is what we do. We stay up on the most current information. We have very experienced case managers who can help navigate the complexities of pancreatic cancer at every stage of the journey.
Or if you have questions about pancreatic cancer, call PanCAN. Go to PanCAN.org and give us a call. Because it’s really that knowledge, knowing what it is that you need to get more knowledge about, how to advocate for yourself is very important in a disease, in any disease, but in particular a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: And I don’t want to dismiss the progress that we’ve made, that you’ve just referenced in terms of the increased survival. But there’s still a long way to go. We need a lot more dollars for research. We need a lot more clinical trials to take place. What’s your message to a viewer who’s been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer or a loved one? What’s your message, Lynn, today for them?
Dr. Matrisian: Well, first, get as much knowledge as you can. Call PanCAN, and let us help you help your loved one. But then help us. Let’s do research. Let’s do more research. Let’s understand this disease better so we can make those kinds of progress in both treatment and early detection.
And PanCAN works very hard at understanding the disease and setting up research programs that are going to make a difference, that are going to get us to that aggressive goal of 20% survival by 2030. So there is a lot of things that can be done, raise awareness to your friends and neighbors about the disease, lots of things that will help this whole field.
Dr. Whyte: What’s your feeling on second opinions? Given that this can be a difficult cancer to treat, given that there’s emerging therapies that are always developing, when you have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, is it important to consider getting a second opinion?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. Yes, it is. And our case managers will help with that process. We do think it’s important.
Dr. Whyte: Because sometimes, Lynn, people just want to get started, right? Get it out of me. Get treatment. And sometimes getting a second opinion, doing some genomic testing can take time. So what’s your response to that?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well we say, your care team is very important. Who is on your care team, and it may take a little time to find the right people on your care team. But that is an incredibly important step. Sometimes it’s not just one person. Sometimes you need more than one doctor, more than one nurse, more than one type of specialty to help you deal with this. And taking the time to do that is incredibly important.
Yes, you need to – you do need to act. But act smart. And do it with knowledge. Do it really understanding what your options are, and advocate for yourself.
Dr. Whyte: And surround yourself as you reference with that right care team for you, because that’s the most important thing when you have any type of cancer diagnosis. Dr. Lynn Matrisian, I want to thank you for taking time today.
Dr. Matrisian: Thank you so much, John.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors are disappearing from emergency departments as hospitals look to cut costs
She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.
In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.
“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.
The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.
This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.
“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.
In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”
Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.
A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.
Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.
The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.
Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.
“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”
Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.
But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.
“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”
Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.
Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.
Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.
These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.
“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”
Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”
The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.
Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.
Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.
“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”
Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.
It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”
Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.
The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.
There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.
Private equity can make millions in the gap.
For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.
Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.
American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.
In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.
“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.
The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.
This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.
“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.
In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”
Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.
A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.
Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.
The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.
Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.
“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”
Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.
But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.
“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”
Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.
Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.
Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.
These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.
“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”
Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”
The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.
Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.
Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.
“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”
Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.
It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”
Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.
The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.
There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.
Private equity can make millions in the gap.
For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.
Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.
American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.
In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.
“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.
The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.
This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.
“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.
In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”
Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.
A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.
Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.
The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.
Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.
“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”
Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.
But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.
“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”
Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.
Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.
Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.
These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.
“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”
Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”
The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.
Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.
Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.
“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”
Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.
It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.
“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”
Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.
The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.
There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.
Private equity can make millions in the gap.
For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.
Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.
American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Health plans get very poor scores for access to autoimmune drugs
Both public and private health plans score poorly when it comes to providing access to autoimmune medication, according to a report commissioned by the Autoimmune Association and Let My Doctors Decide, a national partnership of health care professionals. The analysis, published Jan. 26, found that 75% of insurers in the United States have policies that can limit coverage for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.
“Choice among health plans is a hallmark of the American health insurance system, yet this analysis shows that people living with autoimmune conditions have few, if any, coverage choices that do not involve significant to severe access restrictions,” the authors wrote.
The study looked at three common utilization management policies by health plans that can limit coverage of certain medications: step therapy, formulary/tier placement, and prior authorization. To compare health plans, researchers weighted these policies using a point system. Each medication indicated for each condition was given a score of 0-4 based on access restrictions in a health plan. If a plan used step therapy, it received one point, and requiring prior authorization added an additional point. They also added points based on where a drug appeared on a plan’s formulary. A lower total score meant fewer access barriers. The numbers were then added, and each health plan received a grade of A, B, C, or F based on their average score. The datasets and analysis were provided and performed by the data analytics firm MMIT.
Nearly 9 in 10 Medicare plans received a C or worse for coverage of medication received via mail order or the pharmacy. In commercial plans, the majority of plans scored Cs or Fs for six of the seven conditions, excluding lupus nephritis, where 67% of all commercial health plans scored a B for access to these medications.
Physician-administered medications tended to receive poorer coverage than drugs received via pharmacy. Across all conditions, 65% of Medicare Advantage plans scored an F for physician-administered medication access. For both psoriasis and multiple sclerosis, at least 80% of Medicare plans earned failing scores because of these restrictions. Coverage was poorer on both commercial and health exchange plans, where across all conditions, 83% achieved failing scores. Two exceptions were the Southern and Northern California PPO plans by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Out of the largest 25 health plans in the United States, these two plans earned As in coverage for physician-administered medications across all seven autoimmune conditions.
The report shows “a growing disconnect between science and health insurance benefit designs that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s,” Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. Insurers originally designed these benefits to prevent excessive utilization in a population of mostly acutely ill patients, he said, whereas now, 90% of healthcare spending is linked to chronic conditions. For these patients, research shows that incentivizing patients to adhere to medications results in fewer hospitalizations and, therefore, more cost savings, Thorpe noted. These plans also do not consider that there is no average patient, he said, and healthcare providers should be able to match each patient to the best treatment option for them rather than trying out other less expensive medications first. “To the extent that physicians can have the flexibility to provide medications and treatments to patients that are going to have the best clinical response, that’s better outcomes at lower cost,” Dr. Thorpe said. While research shows heterogeneity in patient outcomes with different medication, “benefit designs from the past just don’t recognize that.”
Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans nor Pharmaceutical Care Management Association responded to a request for comment.
Quardricos Driskell, executive director of Let My Doctors Decide and vice president of government relations and public policy at the Autoimmune Association, hopes the study will spur action by policy makers and health plans to improve access to medications for the people who need them. Another larger point of the report is to “uphold the sanctity of protecting the doctor and patient relationship,” he said in an interview, adding “that decisions fundamentally need to be made not by insurance plans or middleman pharmacy benefit managers, but by the provider and patient.”
Mr. Driskell and Dr. Thorpe reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Both public and private health plans score poorly when it comes to providing access to autoimmune medication, according to a report commissioned by the Autoimmune Association and Let My Doctors Decide, a national partnership of health care professionals. The analysis, published Jan. 26, found that 75% of insurers in the United States have policies that can limit coverage for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.
“Choice among health plans is a hallmark of the American health insurance system, yet this analysis shows that people living with autoimmune conditions have few, if any, coverage choices that do not involve significant to severe access restrictions,” the authors wrote.
The study looked at three common utilization management policies by health plans that can limit coverage of certain medications: step therapy, formulary/tier placement, and prior authorization. To compare health plans, researchers weighted these policies using a point system. Each medication indicated for each condition was given a score of 0-4 based on access restrictions in a health plan. If a plan used step therapy, it received one point, and requiring prior authorization added an additional point. They also added points based on where a drug appeared on a plan’s formulary. A lower total score meant fewer access barriers. The numbers were then added, and each health plan received a grade of A, B, C, or F based on their average score. The datasets and analysis were provided and performed by the data analytics firm MMIT.
Nearly 9 in 10 Medicare plans received a C or worse for coverage of medication received via mail order or the pharmacy. In commercial plans, the majority of plans scored Cs or Fs for six of the seven conditions, excluding lupus nephritis, where 67% of all commercial health plans scored a B for access to these medications.
Physician-administered medications tended to receive poorer coverage than drugs received via pharmacy. Across all conditions, 65% of Medicare Advantage plans scored an F for physician-administered medication access. For both psoriasis and multiple sclerosis, at least 80% of Medicare plans earned failing scores because of these restrictions. Coverage was poorer on both commercial and health exchange plans, where across all conditions, 83% achieved failing scores. Two exceptions were the Southern and Northern California PPO plans by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Out of the largest 25 health plans in the United States, these two plans earned As in coverage for physician-administered medications across all seven autoimmune conditions.
The report shows “a growing disconnect between science and health insurance benefit designs that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s,” Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. Insurers originally designed these benefits to prevent excessive utilization in a population of mostly acutely ill patients, he said, whereas now, 90% of healthcare spending is linked to chronic conditions. For these patients, research shows that incentivizing patients to adhere to medications results in fewer hospitalizations and, therefore, more cost savings, Thorpe noted. These plans also do not consider that there is no average patient, he said, and healthcare providers should be able to match each patient to the best treatment option for them rather than trying out other less expensive medications first. “To the extent that physicians can have the flexibility to provide medications and treatments to patients that are going to have the best clinical response, that’s better outcomes at lower cost,” Dr. Thorpe said. While research shows heterogeneity in patient outcomes with different medication, “benefit designs from the past just don’t recognize that.”
Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans nor Pharmaceutical Care Management Association responded to a request for comment.
Quardricos Driskell, executive director of Let My Doctors Decide and vice president of government relations and public policy at the Autoimmune Association, hopes the study will spur action by policy makers and health plans to improve access to medications for the people who need them. Another larger point of the report is to “uphold the sanctity of protecting the doctor and patient relationship,” he said in an interview, adding “that decisions fundamentally need to be made not by insurance plans or middleman pharmacy benefit managers, but by the provider and patient.”
Mr. Driskell and Dr. Thorpe reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Both public and private health plans score poorly when it comes to providing access to autoimmune medication, according to a report commissioned by the Autoimmune Association and Let My Doctors Decide, a national partnership of health care professionals. The analysis, published Jan. 26, found that 75% of insurers in the United States have policies that can limit coverage for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.
“Choice among health plans is a hallmark of the American health insurance system, yet this analysis shows that people living with autoimmune conditions have few, if any, coverage choices that do not involve significant to severe access restrictions,” the authors wrote.
The study looked at three common utilization management policies by health plans that can limit coverage of certain medications: step therapy, formulary/tier placement, and prior authorization. To compare health plans, researchers weighted these policies using a point system. Each medication indicated for each condition was given a score of 0-4 based on access restrictions in a health plan. If a plan used step therapy, it received one point, and requiring prior authorization added an additional point. They also added points based on where a drug appeared on a plan’s formulary. A lower total score meant fewer access barriers. The numbers were then added, and each health plan received a grade of A, B, C, or F based on their average score. The datasets and analysis were provided and performed by the data analytics firm MMIT.
Nearly 9 in 10 Medicare plans received a C or worse for coverage of medication received via mail order or the pharmacy. In commercial plans, the majority of plans scored Cs or Fs for six of the seven conditions, excluding lupus nephritis, where 67% of all commercial health plans scored a B for access to these medications.
Physician-administered medications tended to receive poorer coverage than drugs received via pharmacy. Across all conditions, 65% of Medicare Advantage plans scored an F for physician-administered medication access. For both psoriasis and multiple sclerosis, at least 80% of Medicare plans earned failing scores because of these restrictions. Coverage was poorer on both commercial and health exchange plans, where across all conditions, 83% achieved failing scores. Two exceptions were the Southern and Northern California PPO plans by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Out of the largest 25 health plans in the United States, these two plans earned As in coverage for physician-administered medications across all seven autoimmune conditions.
The report shows “a growing disconnect between science and health insurance benefit designs that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s,” Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. Insurers originally designed these benefits to prevent excessive utilization in a population of mostly acutely ill patients, he said, whereas now, 90% of healthcare spending is linked to chronic conditions. For these patients, research shows that incentivizing patients to adhere to medications results in fewer hospitalizations and, therefore, more cost savings, Thorpe noted. These plans also do not consider that there is no average patient, he said, and healthcare providers should be able to match each patient to the best treatment option for them rather than trying out other less expensive medications first. “To the extent that physicians can have the flexibility to provide medications and treatments to patients that are going to have the best clinical response, that’s better outcomes at lower cost,” Dr. Thorpe said. While research shows heterogeneity in patient outcomes with different medication, “benefit designs from the past just don’t recognize that.”
Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans nor Pharmaceutical Care Management Association responded to a request for comment.
Quardricos Driskell, executive director of Let My Doctors Decide and vice president of government relations and public policy at the Autoimmune Association, hopes the study will spur action by policy makers and health plans to improve access to medications for the people who need them. Another larger point of the report is to “uphold the sanctity of protecting the doctor and patient relationship,” he said in an interview, adding “that decisions fundamentally need to be made not by insurance plans or middleman pharmacy benefit managers, but by the provider and patient.”
Mr. Driskell and Dr. Thorpe reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New report says suicide rates rising among young Black people
Significant increases in suicide occurred among Native American, Black and Hispanic people, with a startling rise among young Black people. Meanwhile, the rate of suicide among older people declined between 2018 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.
In 2021, 48,183 people died by suicide in the United States, which equates to a suicide rate of 14.1 per 100,000 people. That level equals the 2018 suicide rate, which had seen a peak that was followed by declines associated with the pandemic.
Experts said rebounding suicide rates are common following times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide declines have also occurred during times of war and natural disaster, when psychological resilience tends to increase and people work together to overcome shared adversity.
“That will wane, and then you will see rebounding in suicide rates. That is, in fact, what we feared would happen. And it has happened, at least in 2021,” Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told the New York Times.
The new CDC report found that the largest increase was among Black people aged 10-24 years, who experienced a 36.6% increase in suicide rate between 2018 and 2021. While Black people experience mental illness at the same rates as that of the general population, historically they have disproportionately limited access to mental health care, according to the American Psychiatric Association.
CDC report authors noted that some of the biggest increases in suicide rates occurred among groups most affected by the pandemic.
From 2018 to 2021, the suicide rate for people aged 25-44 increased among Native Americans by 33.7% and among Black people by 22.9%. Suicide increased among multiracial people by 20.6% and among Hispanic or Latinx people by 19.4%. Among White people of all ages, the suicide rate declined or remained steady.
“As the nation continues to respond to the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining vigilant in prevention efforts is critical, especially among disproportionately affected populations where longer-term impacts might compound preexisting inequities in suicide risk,” the CDC researchers wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Significant increases in suicide occurred among Native American, Black and Hispanic people, with a startling rise among young Black people. Meanwhile, the rate of suicide among older people declined between 2018 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.
In 2021, 48,183 people died by suicide in the United States, which equates to a suicide rate of 14.1 per 100,000 people. That level equals the 2018 suicide rate, which had seen a peak that was followed by declines associated with the pandemic.
Experts said rebounding suicide rates are common following times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide declines have also occurred during times of war and natural disaster, when psychological resilience tends to increase and people work together to overcome shared adversity.
“That will wane, and then you will see rebounding in suicide rates. That is, in fact, what we feared would happen. And it has happened, at least in 2021,” Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told the New York Times.
The new CDC report found that the largest increase was among Black people aged 10-24 years, who experienced a 36.6% increase in suicide rate between 2018 and 2021. While Black people experience mental illness at the same rates as that of the general population, historically they have disproportionately limited access to mental health care, according to the American Psychiatric Association.
CDC report authors noted that some of the biggest increases in suicide rates occurred among groups most affected by the pandemic.
From 2018 to 2021, the suicide rate for people aged 25-44 increased among Native Americans by 33.7% and among Black people by 22.9%. Suicide increased among multiracial people by 20.6% and among Hispanic or Latinx people by 19.4%. Among White people of all ages, the suicide rate declined or remained steady.
“As the nation continues to respond to the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining vigilant in prevention efforts is critical, especially among disproportionately affected populations where longer-term impacts might compound preexisting inequities in suicide risk,” the CDC researchers wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Significant increases in suicide occurred among Native American, Black and Hispanic people, with a startling rise among young Black people. Meanwhile, the rate of suicide among older people declined between 2018 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.
In 2021, 48,183 people died by suicide in the United States, which equates to a suicide rate of 14.1 per 100,000 people. That level equals the 2018 suicide rate, which had seen a peak that was followed by declines associated with the pandemic.
Experts said rebounding suicide rates are common following times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide declines have also occurred during times of war and natural disaster, when psychological resilience tends to increase and people work together to overcome shared adversity.
“That will wane, and then you will see rebounding in suicide rates. That is, in fact, what we feared would happen. And it has happened, at least in 2021,” Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told the New York Times.
The new CDC report found that the largest increase was among Black people aged 10-24 years, who experienced a 36.6% increase in suicide rate between 2018 and 2021. While Black people experience mental illness at the same rates as that of the general population, historically they have disproportionately limited access to mental health care, according to the American Psychiatric Association.
CDC report authors noted that some of the biggest increases in suicide rates occurred among groups most affected by the pandemic.
From 2018 to 2021, the suicide rate for people aged 25-44 increased among Native Americans by 33.7% and among Black people by 22.9%. Suicide increased among multiracial people by 20.6% and among Hispanic or Latinx people by 19.4%. Among White people of all ages, the suicide rate declined or remained steady.
“As the nation continues to respond to the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining vigilant in prevention efforts is critical, especially among disproportionately affected populations where longer-term impacts might compound preexisting inequities in suicide risk,” the CDC researchers wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Two biomarkers identify high-risk lupus nephritis
Levels at the time of flare predict outcomes
At the time of a nephritis flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), elevated levels of two neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) protein complexes, elastase-DNA and HMGB1-DNA, predict declining renal function, poor response to therapy, and adverse renal outcomes, according to work presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
“These proteins are not only predominantly elevated in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis, but they correlate with adverse renal outcomes when patients are followed over 24 months,” reported Laura P. Whittall-Garcia, MD, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.
Lupus nephritis is common in SLE, developing in about 50% of patients, according to Dr. Whittall-Garcia. Of these, up to 20% will not respond to standard therapies, typically resulting in end-stage renal disease. Up until now, there has been no reliable method of predicting this adverse clinical course.
Proteins identified in NETs
The series of studies conducted by Dr. Whittall-Garcia and coinvestigators were focused on NETs, a network of strings of DNA that typically bind pathogenic microbes to prevent infection but can participate in the pathology of immune-mediated conditions. As Dr. Whittall-Garcia explained, DNA extruded from NETs has been a source of autoantigens.
Based on earlier work, they pursued the hypothesis that high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) and elastase, which are both NET components, mediate NETosis, the immune response that protects against microbes in healthy individuals but contributes to tissue damage in patients with immune-related disorders. The first aim of this work was to confirm that elevations of elastase-DNA and HMGB1-DNA correlate with active lupus nephritis. The second aim was to determine if levels of these proteins at the time of lupus nephritis flare predicted renal outcomes at 12 and 24 months.
To pursue the first hypothesis, 49 patients with active SLE (18 of whom had active lupus nephritis) were evaluated along with 23 patients with inactive SLE and 20 healthy controls.
Highest levels seen in proliferative nephritis
Relative to healthy controls, patients with active SLE have highly significantly increased levels of both proteins (P < .0001). And relative to those with inactive SLE, the levels of active patients were higher but fell short of statistical significance. However, when the researchers compared those with active lupus nephritis with those who had active SLE but no nephritis, both proteins were significantly higher (P < .04), and the levels in patients with proliferative relative to nonproliferative lupus nephritis were higher still (P < .009).
To pursue the second aim of the study, the researchers retrospectively evaluated 109 patients with SLE. All had active lupus nephritis, a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than 30 mL/min prior to the flare, and at least 2 years of follow-up. They evaluated complete response at 12 and 24 months, percent decline in eGFR, and severe renal impairment (eGFR ≤ 30 mL/min) in the context of levels of elastase and HMGB1.
With elevations in either NET remnant, the odds ratio of failing to achieve a complete response at 24 months were approximately doubled for elastase-DNA (OR, 1.96; P = .01) and for HMGB1 (OR, 2.61; P = .02). For the endpoint of severe renal impairment 24 months after a lupus nephritis flare, there was also a positive association with both elastase-DNA (OR, 1.55; P = .005) and HMBG1-DNA (OR, 1.91; P = .01).
“For every 100-unit increase in elastase-DNA complexes, there is a 4.8% decrease in eGFR,” reported Dr. Whittall-Garcia, who noted this relationship was highly statistically significant (P < .0001). For HMGB1-DNA, each 100-unit increase was associated with a 5.3% decrease in eGFR (P = .0006).
No other biomarkers compare for prognosis
“After adjusting for multiple variables, these protein levels at the time of the flare outperformed all conventional biomarkers, including proteinuria and complement levels,” Dr. Whittall-Garcia said.
Larger validating studies are needed, but Dr. Whittall-Garcia is optimistic that measuring these NET remnant levels will prove useful for monitoring patients at the time of the lupus nephritis flare and over time for the purposes of predicting adverse outcomes and response to therapy.
Although more work is needed, Adegbenga A. Bankole, MD, associate professor of medicine at Virginia Tech University and chief of the rheumatology division at the Carilion Clinic, both in Roanoke, agreed that this is a promising research direction. He reported that NETs have been attracting interest at several research centers for their potential in helping to understand the pathogenesis of lupus nephritis.
“It is unlikely that any one test will ever be a panacea in the diagnosis or predictor of outcomes in lupus nephritis,” Dr. Bankole said in an interview, but “given the importance of NETosis in the development of this disease, studies like this will form the basis of the multistep process through which we will improve patient care.”
With further progress in this area, Dr. Bankole predicted that these studies will lead to clinical applications.
“Dr. Whittall-Garcia and her team will help in the development of diagnostic and/or predictive algorithms that may go on to help improve survival of future patients with SLE,” he said.Dr. Whittall-Garcia and Dr. Bankole report they have no relevant financial relationships.
Levels at the time of flare predict outcomes
Levels at the time of flare predict outcomes
At the time of a nephritis flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), elevated levels of two neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) protein complexes, elastase-DNA and HMGB1-DNA, predict declining renal function, poor response to therapy, and adverse renal outcomes, according to work presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
“These proteins are not only predominantly elevated in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis, but they correlate with adverse renal outcomes when patients are followed over 24 months,” reported Laura P. Whittall-Garcia, MD, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.
Lupus nephritis is common in SLE, developing in about 50% of patients, according to Dr. Whittall-Garcia. Of these, up to 20% will not respond to standard therapies, typically resulting in end-stage renal disease. Up until now, there has been no reliable method of predicting this adverse clinical course.
Proteins identified in NETs
The series of studies conducted by Dr. Whittall-Garcia and coinvestigators were focused on NETs, a network of strings of DNA that typically bind pathogenic microbes to prevent infection but can participate in the pathology of immune-mediated conditions. As Dr. Whittall-Garcia explained, DNA extruded from NETs has been a source of autoantigens.
Based on earlier work, they pursued the hypothesis that high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) and elastase, which are both NET components, mediate NETosis, the immune response that protects against microbes in healthy individuals but contributes to tissue damage in patients with immune-related disorders. The first aim of this work was to confirm that elevations of elastase-DNA and HMGB1-DNA correlate with active lupus nephritis. The second aim was to determine if levels of these proteins at the time of lupus nephritis flare predicted renal outcomes at 12 and 24 months.
To pursue the first hypothesis, 49 patients with active SLE (18 of whom had active lupus nephritis) were evaluated along with 23 patients with inactive SLE and 20 healthy controls.
Highest levels seen in proliferative nephritis
Relative to healthy controls, patients with active SLE have highly significantly increased levels of both proteins (P < .0001). And relative to those with inactive SLE, the levels of active patients were higher but fell short of statistical significance. However, when the researchers compared those with active lupus nephritis with those who had active SLE but no nephritis, both proteins were significantly higher (P < .04), and the levels in patients with proliferative relative to nonproliferative lupus nephritis were higher still (P < .009).
To pursue the second aim of the study, the researchers retrospectively evaluated 109 patients with SLE. All had active lupus nephritis, a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than 30 mL/min prior to the flare, and at least 2 years of follow-up. They evaluated complete response at 12 and 24 months, percent decline in eGFR, and severe renal impairment (eGFR ≤ 30 mL/min) in the context of levels of elastase and HMGB1.
With elevations in either NET remnant, the odds ratio of failing to achieve a complete response at 24 months were approximately doubled for elastase-DNA (OR, 1.96; P = .01) and for HMGB1 (OR, 2.61; P = .02). For the endpoint of severe renal impairment 24 months after a lupus nephritis flare, there was also a positive association with both elastase-DNA (OR, 1.55; P = .005) and HMBG1-DNA (OR, 1.91; P = .01).
“For every 100-unit increase in elastase-DNA complexes, there is a 4.8% decrease in eGFR,” reported Dr. Whittall-Garcia, who noted this relationship was highly statistically significant (P < .0001). For HMGB1-DNA, each 100-unit increase was associated with a 5.3% decrease in eGFR (P = .0006).
No other biomarkers compare for prognosis
“After adjusting for multiple variables, these protein levels at the time of the flare outperformed all conventional biomarkers, including proteinuria and complement levels,” Dr. Whittall-Garcia said.
Larger validating studies are needed, but Dr. Whittall-Garcia is optimistic that measuring these NET remnant levels will prove useful for monitoring patients at the time of the lupus nephritis flare and over time for the purposes of predicting adverse outcomes and response to therapy.
Although more work is needed, Adegbenga A. Bankole, MD, associate professor of medicine at Virginia Tech University and chief of the rheumatology division at the Carilion Clinic, both in Roanoke, agreed that this is a promising research direction. He reported that NETs have been attracting interest at several research centers for their potential in helping to understand the pathogenesis of lupus nephritis.
“It is unlikely that any one test will ever be a panacea in the diagnosis or predictor of outcomes in lupus nephritis,” Dr. Bankole said in an interview, but “given the importance of NETosis in the development of this disease, studies like this will form the basis of the multistep process through which we will improve patient care.”
With further progress in this area, Dr. Bankole predicted that these studies will lead to clinical applications.
“Dr. Whittall-Garcia and her team will help in the development of diagnostic and/or predictive algorithms that may go on to help improve survival of future patients with SLE,” he said.Dr. Whittall-Garcia and Dr. Bankole report they have no relevant financial relationships.
At the time of a nephritis flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), elevated levels of two neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) protein complexes, elastase-DNA and HMGB1-DNA, predict declining renal function, poor response to therapy, and adverse renal outcomes, according to work presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
“These proteins are not only predominantly elevated in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis, but they correlate with adverse renal outcomes when patients are followed over 24 months,” reported Laura P. Whittall-Garcia, MD, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.
Lupus nephritis is common in SLE, developing in about 50% of patients, according to Dr. Whittall-Garcia. Of these, up to 20% will not respond to standard therapies, typically resulting in end-stage renal disease. Up until now, there has been no reliable method of predicting this adverse clinical course.
Proteins identified in NETs
The series of studies conducted by Dr. Whittall-Garcia and coinvestigators were focused on NETs, a network of strings of DNA that typically bind pathogenic microbes to prevent infection but can participate in the pathology of immune-mediated conditions. As Dr. Whittall-Garcia explained, DNA extruded from NETs has been a source of autoantigens.
Based on earlier work, they pursued the hypothesis that high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) and elastase, which are both NET components, mediate NETosis, the immune response that protects against microbes in healthy individuals but contributes to tissue damage in patients with immune-related disorders. The first aim of this work was to confirm that elevations of elastase-DNA and HMGB1-DNA correlate with active lupus nephritis. The second aim was to determine if levels of these proteins at the time of lupus nephritis flare predicted renal outcomes at 12 and 24 months.
To pursue the first hypothesis, 49 patients with active SLE (18 of whom had active lupus nephritis) were evaluated along with 23 patients with inactive SLE and 20 healthy controls.
Highest levels seen in proliferative nephritis
Relative to healthy controls, patients with active SLE have highly significantly increased levels of both proteins (P < .0001). And relative to those with inactive SLE, the levels of active patients were higher but fell short of statistical significance. However, when the researchers compared those with active lupus nephritis with those who had active SLE but no nephritis, both proteins were significantly higher (P < .04), and the levels in patients with proliferative relative to nonproliferative lupus nephritis were higher still (P < .009).
To pursue the second aim of the study, the researchers retrospectively evaluated 109 patients with SLE. All had active lupus nephritis, a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than 30 mL/min prior to the flare, and at least 2 years of follow-up. They evaluated complete response at 12 and 24 months, percent decline in eGFR, and severe renal impairment (eGFR ≤ 30 mL/min) in the context of levels of elastase and HMGB1.
With elevations in either NET remnant, the odds ratio of failing to achieve a complete response at 24 months were approximately doubled for elastase-DNA (OR, 1.96; P = .01) and for HMGB1 (OR, 2.61; P = .02). For the endpoint of severe renal impairment 24 months after a lupus nephritis flare, there was also a positive association with both elastase-DNA (OR, 1.55; P = .005) and HMBG1-DNA (OR, 1.91; P = .01).
“For every 100-unit increase in elastase-DNA complexes, there is a 4.8% decrease in eGFR,” reported Dr. Whittall-Garcia, who noted this relationship was highly statistically significant (P < .0001). For HMGB1-DNA, each 100-unit increase was associated with a 5.3% decrease in eGFR (P = .0006).
No other biomarkers compare for prognosis
“After adjusting for multiple variables, these protein levels at the time of the flare outperformed all conventional biomarkers, including proteinuria and complement levels,” Dr. Whittall-Garcia said.
Larger validating studies are needed, but Dr. Whittall-Garcia is optimistic that measuring these NET remnant levels will prove useful for monitoring patients at the time of the lupus nephritis flare and over time for the purposes of predicting adverse outcomes and response to therapy.
Although more work is needed, Adegbenga A. Bankole, MD, associate professor of medicine at Virginia Tech University and chief of the rheumatology division at the Carilion Clinic, both in Roanoke, agreed that this is a promising research direction. He reported that NETs have been attracting interest at several research centers for their potential in helping to understand the pathogenesis of lupus nephritis.
“It is unlikely that any one test will ever be a panacea in the diagnosis or predictor of outcomes in lupus nephritis,” Dr. Bankole said in an interview, but “given the importance of NETosis in the development of this disease, studies like this will form the basis of the multistep process through which we will improve patient care.”
With further progress in this area, Dr. Bankole predicted that these studies will lead to clinical applications.
“Dr. Whittall-Garcia and her team will help in the development of diagnostic and/or predictive algorithms that may go on to help improve survival of future patients with SLE,” he said.Dr. Whittall-Garcia and Dr. Bankole report they have no relevant financial relationships.
FROM CRA 2023
USPSTF recommends against routine herpes screening for asymptomatic teens and adults
Asymptomatic adults, teens, and pregnant women with no known history or symptoms of herpes infection need not undergo routine screening, according to the latest recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
The 2023 recommendation reaffirms the conclusion from 2016, wrote Carol M. Mangione, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and members of the task force.
“Currently, routine serologic screening for genital herpes is limited by the low predictive value of the widely available serologic screening tests and the expected high rate of false-positive results likely to occur with routine screening of asymptomatic persons in the U.S.,” the authors said.
In the recommendation, published in JAMA, the authors affirmed with moderate certainty and a grade D recommendation that the risks of routine screening for herpes simplex virus (HSV) in asymptomatic individuals outweigh the benefits.
The task force found no new evidence on the accuracy of serologic screening tests, the benefits of early detection and treatment, or on the harms of screening and treatment since the 2016 review of 17 studies in 19 publications, with data from more than 9,000 individuals.
Studies of the accuracy of serologic screening for herpes simplex virus-2 in the 2016 report mainly reflect populations with higher HSV-2 prevalence and are of limited applicability to the U.S. primary care population, the authors wrote. Evidence from the 2016 review also showed limited and inconsistent support for the early identification and treatment of HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, including those who were pregnant.
No new evidence has emerged since 2016 regarding harms of screening or treating genital herpes in asymptomatic individuals, the authors noted. “Based on previous evidence, the USPSTF estimated that using the widely available serologic tests for HSV-2, nearly 1 of every 2 diagnoses in the general U.S. primary care population could be false,” they said. The task force also concluded that the low accuracy of the current tests could prompt unnecessary treatment for individuals with false-positive diagnoses, as well as social and emotional harm for these individuals.
During a period of public comment from Aug. 16, 2022, to Sept. 12, 2022, individuals expressed concerns that the recommendation against routine screening showed a disinclination to take herpes seriously, and concerns that asymptomatic individuals could transmit the infection to sexual partners, the authors said. However, the estimated seroprevalence of HSV-1 and HSV-2 has declined in recent decades, and other comments supported the USPSTF’s analysis of the evidence and noted their consistency with current clinical practice.
The task force noted that research gaps remain and recognized the need to improve screening and treatment of genital herpes to prevent symptomatic episodes and transmission. Specifically, the USPSTF recommendation calls for more research to assess the accuracy of screening tests, to enroll more study participants from populations disproportionately affected by HSV, to examine the effect of behavioral counseling, and to clarify associations between HSV and pregnancy outcomes. In addition, the task force called for research to create an effective vaccine to prevent genital HSV infection and to develop a cure.
Targeted screening makes sense for now
“Given the frequency and severity of the range of diseases seen with HSV and the large proportion of persons who are asymptomatic, identifying carriers through type-specific serologic screening has long been considered a plausible strategy,” Mark D. Pearlman, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
However, accuracy of the currently available serology screening tests is low, and the adverse social and psychological effects and the impact on relationships for many asymptomatic individuals who test positive and may be incorrectly identified as infected remains a concern, said Dr. Pearlman.
Although some may be disagree about the value of routine serotesting for HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, other strategies can reduce the spread of infection and help those infected, he said.
Many experts continue to recommend targeted serotesting to high-risk populations, such as pregnant women whose nonpregnant partner is known to have genital or oral herpes and whose own infection status or serostatus is uncertain, said Dr. Pearlman. Other targeted strategies include screening individuals with recurrent or atypical genital symptoms and negative polymerase chain reaction assay or culture results, a clinical herpes diagnosis without laboratory confirmation, or those at increased risk because of a high number of sexual partners or a history of HIV infection, he said.
“Of note, the current CDC STI guidelines and ACOG both concur with the USPSTF that routine screening in the general population or routine screening during pregnancy are not recommended,” Dr. Pearlman said. Meanwhile, research efforts continue to help reduce the impact of HSV disease and development of a more effective testing methodology “might tip the balance in favor of routine screening” in the future, he emphasized.
The recommendations were supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The members of the task force received reimbursement for travel and an honorarium but had no other relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pearlman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Asymptomatic adults, teens, and pregnant women with no known history or symptoms of herpes infection need not undergo routine screening, according to the latest recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
The 2023 recommendation reaffirms the conclusion from 2016, wrote Carol M. Mangione, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and members of the task force.
“Currently, routine serologic screening for genital herpes is limited by the low predictive value of the widely available serologic screening tests and the expected high rate of false-positive results likely to occur with routine screening of asymptomatic persons in the U.S.,” the authors said.
In the recommendation, published in JAMA, the authors affirmed with moderate certainty and a grade D recommendation that the risks of routine screening for herpes simplex virus (HSV) in asymptomatic individuals outweigh the benefits.
The task force found no new evidence on the accuracy of serologic screening tests, the benefits of early detection and treatment, or on the harms of screening and treatment since the 2016 review of 17 studies in 19 publications, with data from more than 9,000 individuals.
Studies of the accuracy of serologic screening for herpes simplex virus-2 in the 2016 report mainly reflect populations with higher HSV-2 prevalence and are of limited applicability to the U.S. primary care population, the authors wrote. Evidence from the 2016 review also showed limited and inconsistent support for the early identification and treatment of HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, including those who were pregnant.
No new evidence has emerged since 2016 regarding harms of screening or treating genital herpes in asymptomatic individuals, the authors noted. “Based on previous evidence, the USPSTF estimated that using the widely available serologic tests for HSV-2, nearly 1 of every 2 diagnoses in the general U.S. primary care population could be false,” they said. The task force also concluded that the low accuracy of the current tests could prompt unnecessary treatment for individuals with false-positive diagnoses, as well as social and emotional harm for these individuals.
During a period of public comment from Aug. 16, 2022, to Sept. 12, 2022, individuals expressed concerns that the recommendation against routine screening showed a disinclination to take herpes seriously, and concerns that asymptomatic individuals could transmit the infection to sexual partners, the authors said. However, the estimated seroprevalence of HSV-1 and HSV-2 has declined in recent decades, and other comments supported the USPSTF’s analysis of the evidence and noted their consistency with current clinical practice.
The task force noted that research gaps remain and recognized the need to improve screening and treatment of genital herpes to prevent symptomatic episodes and transmission. Specifically, the USPSTF recommendation calls for more research to assess the accuracy of screening tests, to enroll more study participants from populations disproportionately affected by HSV, to examine the effect of behavioral counseling, and to clarify associations between HSV and pregnancy outcomes. In addition, the task force called for research to create an effective vaccine to prevent genital HSV infection and to develop a cure.
Targeted screening makes sense for now
“Given the frequency and severity of the range of diseases seen with HSV and the large proportion of persons who are asymptomatic, identifying carriers through type-specific serologic screening has long been considered a plausible strategy,” Mark D. Pearlman, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
However, accuracy of the currently available serology screening tests is low, and the adverse social and psychological effects and the impact on relationships for many asymptomatic individuals who test positive and may be incorrectly identified as infected remains a concern, said Dr. Pearlman.
Although some may be disagree about the value of routine serotesting for HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, other strategies can reduce the spread of infection and help those infected, he said.
Many experts continue to recommend targeted serotesting to high-risk populations, such as pregnant women whose nonpregnant partner is known to have genital or oral herpes and whose own infection status or serostatus is uncertain, said Dr. Pearlman. Other targeted strategies include screening individuals with recurrent or atypical genital symptoms and negative polymerase chain reaction assay or culture results, a clinical herpes diagnosis without laboratory confirmation, or those at increased risk because of a high number of sexual partners or a history of HIV infection, he said.
“Of note, the current CDC STI guidelines and ACOG both concur with the USPSTF that routine screening in the general population or routine screening during pregnancy are not recommended,” Dr. Pearlman said. Meanwhile, research efforts continue to help reduce the impact of HSV disease and development of a more effective testing methodology “might tip the balance in favor of routine screening” in the future, he emphasized.
The recommendations were supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The members of the task force received reimbursement for travel and an honorarium but had no other relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pearlman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Asymptomatic adults, teens, and pregnant women with no known history or symptoms of herpes infection need not undergo routine screening, according to the latest recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
The 2023 recommendation reaffirms the conclusion from 2016, wrote Carol M. Mangione, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and members of the task force.
“Currently, routine serologic screening for genital herpes is limited by the low predictive value of the widely available serologic screening tests and the expected high rate of false-positive results likely to occur with routine screening of asymptomatic persons in the U.S.,” the authors said.
In the recommendation, published in JAMA, the authors affirmed with moderate certainty and a grade D recommendation that the risks of routine screening for herpes simplex virus (HSV) in asymptomatic individuals outweigh the benefits.
The task force found no new evidence on the accuracy of serologic screening tests, the benefits of early detection and treatment, or on the harms of screening and treatment since the 2016 review of 17 studies in 19 publications, with data from more than 9,000 individuals.
Studies of the accuracy of serologic screening for herpes simplex virus-2 in the 2016 report mainly reflect populations with higher HSV-2 prevalence and are of limited applicability to the U.S. primary care population, the authors wrote. Evidence from the 2016 review also showed limited and inconsistent support for the early identification and treatment of HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, including those who were pregnant.
No new evidence has emerged since 2016 regarding harms of screening or treating genital herpes in asymptomatic individuals, the authors noted. “Based on previous evidence, the USPSTF estimated that using the widely available serologic tests for HSV-2, nearly 1 of every 2 diagnoses in the general U.S. primary care population could be false,” they said. The task force also concluded that the low accuracy of the current tests could prompt unnecessary treatment for individuals with false-positive diagnoses, as well as social and emotional harm for these individuals.
During a period of public comment from Aug. 16, 2022, to Sept. 12, 2022, individuals expressed concerns that the recommendation against routine screening showed a disinclination to take herpes seriously, and concerns that asymptomatic individuals could transmit the infection to sexual partners, the authors said. However, the estimated seroprevalence of HSV-1 and HSV-2 has declined in recent decades, and other comments supported the USPSTF’s analysis of the evidence and noted their consistency with current clinical practice.
The task force noted that research gaps remain and recognized the need to improve screening and treatment of genital herpes to prevent symptomatic episodes and transmission. Specifically, the USPSTF recommendation calls for more research to assess the accuracy of screening tests, to enroll more study participants from populations disproportionately affected by HSV, to examine the effect of behavioral counseling, and to clarify associations between HSV and pregnancy outcomes. In addition, the task force called for research to create an effective vaccine to prevent genital HSV infection and to develop a cure.
Targeted screening makes sense for now
“Given the frequency and severity of the range of diseases seen with HSV and the large proportion of persons who are asymptomatic, identifying carriers through type-specific serologic screening has long been considered a plausible strategy,” Mark D. Pearlman, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
However, accuracy of the currently available serology screening tests is low, and the adverse social and psychological effects and the impact on relationships for many asymptomatic individuals who test positive and may be incorrectly identified as infected remains a concern, said Dr. Pearlman.
Although some may be disagree about the value of routine serotesting for HSV-2 in asymptomatic individuals, other strategies can reduce the spread of infection and help those infected, he said.
Many experts continue to recommend targeted serotesting to high-risk populations, such as pregnant women whose nonpregnant partner is known to have genital or oral herpes and whose own infection status or serostatus is uncertain, said Dr. Pearlman. Other targeted strategies include screening individuals with recurrent or atypical genital symptoms and negative polymerase chain reaction assay or culture results, a clinical herpes diagnosis without laboratory confirmation, or those at increased risk because of a high number of sexual partners or a history of HIV infection, he said.
“Of note, the current CDC STI guidelines and ACOG both concur with the USPSTF that routine screening in the general population or routine screening during pregnancy are not recommended,” Dr. Pearlman said. Meanwhile, research efforts continue to help reduce the impact of HSV disease and development of a more effective testing methodology “might tip the balance in favor of routine screening” in the future, he emphasized.
The recommendations were supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The members of the task force received reimbursement for travel and an honorarium but had no other relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pearlman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM JAMA
Repetitive TMS effective for comorbid depression, substance use
In a retrospective observational study, participants receiving 20-30 rTMS sessions delivered over a course of 4-6 weeks showed significant reductions in both craving and depression symptom scores.
In addition, the researchers found that the number of rTMS sessions significantly predicted the number of days of drug abstinence, even after controlling for confounders.
“For each additional TMS session, there was an additional 10 days of abstinence in the community,” principal investigator Wael Foad, MD, medical director, Erada Center for Treatment and Rehabilitation, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, told this news organization.
However, Dr. Foad noted that he would need to construct a randomized controlled trial to further explore that “interesting” finding.
The results were published in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.
Inpatient program
The researchers retrospectively analyzed medical records of men admitted to the inpatient unit at the Erada Center between June 2019 and September 2020. The vast majority were native to the UAE.
The inpatient program focuses on treating patients with SUDs and is the only dedicated addiction rehabilitation service in Dubai, the investigators noted.
They analyzed outcomes for 55 men with mild to moderate MDD who received rTMS as standard treatment.
Participants were excluded from the data analysis if they had another comorbid diagnosis from the DSM-5 other than SUD or MDD. They were also excluded if they used an illicit substance 2 weeks before the study or used certain medications, including antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, or mood stabilizers.
When patients first arrived on the unit, they were detoxed for a period of time before they began receiving rTMS sessions.
The 55 men received 20-30 high-frequency rTMS sessions over the course of 4-6 weeks in the area of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Each session consisted of 3,000 pulses delivered over a period of 37.5 minutes. Severity of depression was measured with the Clinical Global Impression–Severity Scale (CGI-S), which uses a 7-point Likert scale.
In addition, participants’ scores were tracked on the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS), a self-report scale that measures craving for primary and secondary substances of abuse over a 24-hr period.
Of all participants, 47% said opiates and 35% said methamphetamine were their primary substances of abuse.
Significant improvement
Results showed a statistically significant improvement (P < .05) between baseline and post-rTMS treatment scores in severity of depression and drug craving, as measured by the BSCS and the CGI-S.
The researchers noted that eight participants dropped out of the study after their first rTMS session for various reasons.
Dr. Foad explained that investigators contracted with study participants to receive 20 rTMS sessions; if the sessions were not fully completed during the inpatient stay, the rTMS sessions were continued on an outpatient basis. A study clinician closely monitored patients until they finished their sessions.
For each additional rTMS session the patients completed beyond 20 sessions, there was an associated excess of 10 more days of abstinence from the primary drug in the community.
The investigators speculated that rTMS may reduce drug craving by increasing dopaminergic binding in the striatum, or by releasing dopamine in the caudate nucleus.
Study limitations cited include the lack of a control group and the fact that the study sample was limited to male inpatients, which limits generalizability of the findings to other populations.
Promising intervention
Commenting on the study, Colleen Ann Hanlon, PhD, noted that, from years of work using TMS for depression, “we know that more sessions of TMS during the acute treatment phase tends to lead to stronger and possibly more durable results long-term.”
Dr. Hanlon, who was not involved with the current research, formerly headed a clinical neuromodulation lab at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. She is now vice president of medical affairs at BrainsWay, an international health technology company specializing in Deep TMS.
She noted that Deep TMS was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for smoking cessation in 2020, “which was a tremendous win for our field at large, and requires only 15 acute sessions followed by 3 weekly sessions” of deep TMS.
“I suspect this is just the beginning of a new era in neuromodulation-based therapeutics for people struggling with drug and alcohol use disorders,” Dr. Hanlon said.
The study behind the FDA approval for smoking approval was a large double-blind, sham-controlled multisite clinical trial where investigators used an H4 coil – a TMS coil that modulates multiple brain areas involved in addictive behaviors simultaneously.
Results from that study showed that 15 sessions of deep TMS significantly improved smoking cessation rates relative to sham (10 Hz, 120% motor threshold, H4 coil, 1,800 pulses/session).
“The difference in cigarette consumption and craving was significant as early as 2 weeks after treatment initiation,” said Dr. Hanlon. “I am looking forward to the future of this field for all people suffering from drug and alcohol use disorders.”
The study and services provided through the Erada Center were funded by the government of Dubai. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a retrospective observational study, participants receiving 20-30 rTMS sessions delivered over a course of 4-6 weeks showed significant reductions in both craving and depression symptom scores.
In addition, the researchers found that the number of rTMS sessions significantly predicted the number of days of drug abstinence, even after controlling for confounders.
“For each additional TMS session, there was an additional 10 days of abstinence in the community,” principal investigator Wael Foad, MD, medical director, Erada Center for Treatment and Rehabilitation, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, told this news organization.
However, Dr. Foad noted that he would need to construct a randomized controlled trial to further explore that “interesting” finding.
The results were published in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.
Inpatient program
The researchers retrospectively analyzed medical records of men admitted to the inpatient unit at the Erada Center between June 2019 and September 2020. The vast majority were native to the UAE.
The inpatient program focuses on treating patients with SUDs and is the only dedicated addiction rehabilitation service in Dubai, the investigators noted.
They analyzed outcomes for 55 men with mild to moderate MDD who received rTMS as standard treatment.
Participants were excluded from the data analysis if they had another comorbid diagnosis from the DSM-5 other than SUD or MDD. They were also excluded if they used an illicit substance 2 weeks before the study or used certain medications, including antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, or mood stabilizers.
When patients first arrived on the unit, they were detoxed for a period of time before they began receiving rTMS sessions.
The 55 men received 20-30 high-frequency rTMS sessions over the course of 4-6 weeks in the area of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Each session consisted of 3,000 pulses delivered over a period of 37.5 minutes. Severity of depression was measured with the Clinical Global Impression–Severity Scale (CGI-S), which uses a 7-point Likert scale.
In addition, participants’ scores were tracked on the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS), a self-report scale that measures craving for primary and secondary substances of abuse over a 24-hr period.
Of all participants, 47% said opiates and 35% said methamphetamine were their primary substances of abuse.
Significant improvement
Results showed a statistically significant improvement (P < .05) between baseline and post-rTMS treatment scores in severity of depression and drug craving, as measured by the BSCS and the CGI-S.
The researchers noted that eight participants dropped out of the study after their first rTMS session for various reasons.
Dr. Foad explained that investigators contracted with study participants to receive 20 rTMS sessions; if the sessions were not fully completed during the inpatient stay, the rTMS sessions were continued on an outpatient basis. A study clinician closely monitored patients until they finished their sessions.
For each additional rTMS session the patients completed beyond 20 sessions, there was an associated excess of 10 more days of abstinence from the primary drug in the community.
The investigators speculated that rTMS may reduce drug craving by increasing dopaminergic binding in the striatum, or by releasing dopamine in the caudate nucleus.
Study limitations cited include the lack of a control group and the fact that the study sample was limited to male inpatients, which limits generalizability of the findings to other populations.
Promising intervention
Commenting on the study, Colleen Ann Hanlon, PhD, noted that, from years of work using TMS for depression, “we know that more sessions of TMS during the acute treatment phase tends to lead to stronger and possibly more durable results long-term.”
Dr. Hanlon, who was not involved with the current research, formerly headed a clinical neuromodulation lab at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. She is now vice president of medical affairs at BrainsWay, an international health technology company specializing in Deep TMS.
She noted that Deep TMS was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for smoking cessation in 2020, “which was a tremendous win for our field at large, and requires only 15 acute sessions followed by 3 weekly sessions” of deep TMS.
“I suspect this is just the beginning of a new era in neuromodulation-based therapeutics for people struggling with drug and alcohol use disorders,” Dr. Hanlon said.
The study behind the FDA approval for smoking approval was a large double-blind, sham-controlled multisite clinical trial where investigators used an H4 coil – a TMS coil that modulates multiple brain areas involved in addictive behaviors simultaneously.
Results from that study showed that 15 sessions of deep TMS significantly improved smoking cessation rates relative to sham (10 Hz, 120% motor threshold, H4 coil, 1,800 pulses/session).
“The difference in cigarette consumption and craving was significant as early as 2 weeks after treatment initiation,” said Dr. Hanlon. “I am looking forward to the future of this field for all people suffering from drug and alcohol use disorders.”
The study and services provided through the Erada Center were funded by the government of Dubai. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a retrospective observational study, participants receiving 20-30 rTMS sessions delivered over a course of 4-6 weeks showed significant reductions in both craving and depression symptom scores.
In addition, the researchers found that the number of rTMS sessions significantly predicted the number of days of drug abstinence, even after controlling for confounders.
“For each additional TMS session, there was an additional 10 days of abstinence in the community,” principal investigator Wael Foad, MD, medical director, Erada Center for Treatment and Rehabilitation, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, told this news organization.
However, Dr. Foad noted that he would need to construct a randomized controlled trial to further explore that “interesting” finding.
The results were published in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.
Inpatient program
The researchers retrospectively analyzed medical records of men admitted to the inpatient unit at the Erada Center between June 2019 and September 2020. The vast majority were native to the UAE.
The inpatient program focuses on treating patients with SUDs and is the only dedicated addiction rehabilitation service in Dubai, the investigators noted.
They analyzed outcomes for 55 men with mild to moderate MDD who received rTMS as standard treatment.
Participants were excluded from the data analysis if they had another comorbid diagnosis from the DSM-5 other than SUD or MDD. They were also excluded if they used an illicit substance 2 weeks before the study or used certain medications, including antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, or mood stabilizers.
When patients first arrived on the unit, they were detoxed for a period of time before they began receiving rTMS sessions.
The 55 men received 20-30 high-frequency rTMS sessions over the course of 4-6 weeks in the area of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Each session consisted of 3,000 pulses delivered over a period of 37.5 minutes. Severity of depression was measured with the Clinical Global Impression–Severity Scale (CGI-S), which uses a 7-point Likert scale.
In addition, participants’ scores were tracked on the Brief Substance Craving Scale (BSCS), a self-report scale that measures craving for primary and secondary substances of abuse over a 24-hr period.
Of all participants, 47% said opiates and 35% said methamphetamine were their primary substances of abuse.
Significant improvement
Results showed a statistically significant improvement (P < .05) between baseline and post-rTMS treatment scores in severity of depression and drug craving, as measured by the BSCS and the CGI-S.
The researchers noted that eight participants dropped out of the study after their first rTMS session for various reasons.
Dr. Foad explained that investigators contracted with study participants to receive 20 rTMS sessions; if the sessions were not fully completed during the inpatient stay, the rTMS sessions were continued on an outpatient basis. A study clinician closely monitored patients until they finished their sessions.
For each additional rTMS session the patients completed beyond 20 sessions, there was an associated excess of 10 more days of abstinence from the primary drug in the community.
The investigators speculated that rTMS may reduce drug craving by increasing dopaminergic binding in the striatum, or by releasing dopamine in the caudate nucleus.
Study limitations cited include the lack of a control group and the fact that the study sample was limited to male inpatients, which limits generalizability of the findings to other populations.
Promising intervention
Commenting on the study, Colleen Ann Hanlon, PhD, noted that, from years of work using TMS for depression, “we know that more sessions of TMS during the acute treatment phase tends to lead to stronger and possibly more durable results long-term.”
Dr. Hanlon, who was not involved with the current research, formerly headed a clinical neuromodulation lab at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. She is now vice president of medical affairs at BrainsWay, an international health technology company specializing in Deep TMS.
She noted that Deep TMS was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for smoking cessation in 2020, “which was a tremendous win for our field at large, and requires only 15 acute sessions followed by 3 weekly sessions” of deep TMS.
“I suspect this is just the beginning of a new era in neuromodulation-based therapeutics for people struggling with drug and alcohol use disorders,” Dr. Hanlon said.
The study behind the FDA approval for smoking approval was a large double-blind, sham-controlled multisite clinical trial where investigators used an H4 coil – a TMS coil that modulates multiple brain areas involved in addictive behaviors simultaneously.
Results from that study showed that 15 sessions of deep TMS significantly improved smoking cessation rates relative to sham (10 Hz, 120% motor threshold, H4 coil, 1,800 pulses/session).
“The difference in cigarette consumption and craving was significant as early as 2 weeks after treatment initiation,” said Dr. Hanlon. “I am looking forward to the future of this field for all people suffering from drug and alcohol use disorders.”
The study and services provided through the Erada Center were funded by the government of Dubai. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE ANNALS OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY