Rheumatology News

Queen Elizabeth is everywhere. She was even on the last slide of a presentation on COVID, monkeypox, and influenza vaccines given by our physician in charge of quality. This was odd. The presenter wasn’t English. The Queen had nothing to do with vaccines. Nor apparently would she have said even if she did have an opinion about them. But there we were, an audience of physicians and staff pausing for a moment of remembrance of her.

I’m not a Monarchist – except perhaps for the Kennedys. I grew up in New England. I don’t have an opinion on whether or not the British Crown should endure. But I do marvel at the astounding effect Queen Elizabeth’s passing had on so many around the world. Her personal qualities, particularly her steadiness and humane sympathy, might explain why so many are sad hearing the news. But also I think there was something in her role that we all wished for: Not the owning of palaces and sceptres, but rather, the respect that was given to her.

She was a stateswoman of “unmatched dignity,” the White House wrote. That was true, but it seems being the Queen might have been the last job on earth where such dignity is still possible. Certainly in politics, education, and even health care, there doesn’t seem to be much left lately.

The same day of that presentation I walked into the room of a patient 22 minutes late, she held her arm forth tapping her watch to indicate the time and my tardiness. Unnecessary, if not impertinent. Covering for one of my female physician colleagues, I read an email from a patient which began, “Dear Julie, With all due respect …” Another patient submitted a photo for us to review that was clearly taken from her car while waiting at a stop light. Hardly the consideration a clinical encounter should be given.

Much has been lost for patients. too. There are patients trying to make appointments lately who are told: “There are none. Call back later.” Gone it seems are the days of a two-part office visit, the first part fully clothed in the physician’s office, then the exam. There is no dignified way to remove exam paper stuck to your backside before introducing yourself to the doctor. Maybe that last slide of Her Majesty was in fact for us to have a moment of silence for what we’ve all lost.

Walter Bagehot (pronounce it “Baj-et” if you tell this story to your Harlan wine friends) was a political writer and editor of The Economist in the 1860s. He famously said that the secret to the English government was having two kinds of institutions, the dignified and the efficient. The efficient, Parliament, was responsible for all the work. The dignified, the Crown, gives significance and holds everyone’s respect. If medicine ever once was both dignified and efficient, we aren’t lately. We push to reduce backlogs, offer same-time virtual care, work to reduce costs. We’ve driven medicine to the efficient and left little of the dignity it seems.

The Queen will be remembered for her lifelong dedication to the laborious service of others. Even though each of us in medicine pledges the same, we also mourn this week the loss of dignity that once came with it.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Queen Elizabeth is everywhere. She was even on the last slide of a presentation on COVID, monkeypox, and influenza vaccines given by our physician in charge of quality. This was odd. The presenter wasn’t English. The Queen had nothing to do with vaccines. Nor apparently would she have said even if she did have an opinion about them. But there we were, an audience of physicians and staff pausing for a moment of remembrance of her.

I’m not a Monarchist – except perhaps for the Kennedys. I grew up in New England. I don’t have an opinion on whether or not the British Crown should endure. But I do marvel at the astounding effect Queen Elizabeth’s passing had on so many around the world. Her personal qualities, particularly her steadiness and humane sympathy, might explain why so many are sad hearing the news. But also I think there was something in her role that we all wished for: Not the owning of palaces and sceptres, but rather, the respect that was given to her.

She was a stateswoman of “unmatched dignity,” the White House wrote. That was true, but it seems being the Queen might have been the last job on earth where such dignity is still possible. Certainly in politics, education, and even health care, there doesn’t seem to be much left lately.

The same day of that presentation I walked into the room of a patient 22 minutes late, she held her arm forth tapping her watch to indicate the time and my tardiness. Unnecessary, if not impertinent. Covering for one of my female physician colleagues, I read an email from a patient which began, “Dear Julie, With all due respect …” Another patient submitted a photo for us to review that was clearly taken from her car while waiting at a stop light. Hardly the consideration a clinical encounter should be given.

Much has been lost for patients. too. There are patients trying to make appointments lately who are told: “There are none. Call back later.” Gone it seems are the days of a two-part office visit, the first part fully clothed in the physician’s office, then the exam. There is no dignified way to remove exam paper stuck to your backside before introducing yourself to the doctor. Maybe that last slide of Her Majesty was in fact for us to have a moment of silence for what we’ve all lost.

Walter Bagehot (pronounce it “Baj-et” if you tell this story to your Harlan wine friends) was a political writer and editor of The Economist in the 1860s. He famously said that the secret to the English government was having two kinds of institutions, the dignified and the efficient. The efficient, Parliament, was responsible for all the work. The dignified, the Crown, gives significance and holds everyone’s respect. If medicine ever once was both dignified and efficient, we aren’t lately. We push to reduce backlogs, offer same-time virtual care, work to reduce costs. We’ve driven medicine to the efficient and left little of the dignity it seems.

The Queen will be remembered for her lifelong dedication to the laborious service of others. Even though each of us in medicine pledges the same, we also mourn this week the loss of dignity that once came with it.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Queen Elizabeth is everywhere. She was even on the last slide of a presentation on COVID, monkeypox, and influenza vaccines given by our physician in charge of quality. This was odd. The presenter wasn’t English. The Queen had nothing to do with vaccines. Nor apparently would she have said even if she did have an opinion about them. But there we were, an audience of physicians and staff pausing for a moment of remembrance of her.

I’m not a Monarchist – except perhaps for the Kennedys. I grew up in New England. I don’t have an opinion on whether or not the British Crown should endure. But I do marvel at the astounding effect Queen Elizabeth’s passing had on so many around the world. Her personal qualities, particularly her steadiness and humane sympathy, might explain why so many are sad hearing the news. But also I think there was something in her role that we all wished for: Not the owning of palaces and sceptres, but rather, the respect that was given to her.

She was a stateswoman of “unmatched dignity,” the White House wrote. That was true, but it seems being the Queen might have been the last job on earth where such dignity is still possible. Certainly in politics, education, and even health care, there doesn’t seem to be much left lately.

The same day of that presentation I walked into the room of a patient 22 minutes late, she held her arm forth tapping her watch to indicate the time and my tardiness. Unnecessary, if not impertinent. Covering for one of my female physician colleagues, I read an email from a patient which began, “Dear Julie, With all due respect …” Another patient submitted a photo for us to review that was clearly taken from her car while waiting at a stop light. Hardly the consideration a clinical encounter should be given.

Much has been lost for patients. too. There are patients trying to make appointments lately who are told: “There are none. Call back later.” Gone it seems are the days of a two-part office visit, the first part fully clothed in the physician’s office, then the exam. There is no dignified way to remove exam paper stuck to your backside before introducing yourself to the doctor. Maybe that last slide of Her Majesty was in fact for us to have a moment of silence for what we’ve all lost.

Walter Bagehot (pronounce it “Baj-et” if you tell this story to your Harlan wine friends) was a political writer and editor of The Economist in the 1860s. He famously said that the secret to the English government was having two kinds of institutions, the dignified and the efficient. The efficient, Parliament, was responsible for all the work. The dignified, the Crown, gives significance and holds everyone’s respect. If medicine ever once was both dignified and efficient, we aren’t lately. We push to reduce backlogs, offer same-time virtual care, work to reduce costs. We’ve driven medicine to the efficient and left little of the dignity it seems.

The Queen will be remembered for her lifelong dedication to the laborious service of others. Even though each of us in medicine pledges the same, we also mourn this week the loss of dignity that once came with it.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Health care costs are skyrocketing for everyone! For employers, the cost of health insurance is second only to their payroll expense. Per person spending in employer plans grew by 22% between 2015 and 2019. This outpaced inflation and economic growth. Affording health insurance for business owners has become more and more difficult, bordering on desperation for some. Consequently, they are looking for ways to be more efficient in their health care spending. One way is through self-funding their employees’ health care costs. This means that the employer directly pays for the care of their employees. While it has always been thought this was just for very large employers, it is becoming more common with smaller businesses. There is more flexibility and oversight with self-funded plans, and the employer can dictate exactly what benefits are covered within the bounds of the law. While this can make it easier to exclude certain therapies and even institute site-of-care restrictions, it also can make the employer vulnerable to health insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and third-party administrators (TPAs) that promise large discounts in plan and drug spending at the expense of their employees’ health.

Recently enacted state laws often don’t apply

Because employers who self-fund the health care for their employees are increasingly desperate to save money, they will often agree to plans that are less expensive but offer suboptimal care, particularly for patients with chronic diseases requiring expensive medicines. Many employers are not fully informed of the ramifications of these policies, so the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations is creating an educational employer tool kit that not only highlights the importance of disease control for their employees with rheumatic conditions but also outlines the pitfalls and misinformation that may be given to them by the insurance companies, PBMs, and other third parties that administer their health plan.

Policies that sacrifice patient care of course are not exclusive to certain self-funded health plans. The CSRO’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) receives complaints daily from rheumatologists around the country regarding both the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and non-ERISA health plan policies that are harmful to their patients. Our PIRT team assesses these complaints and researches solutions that can include writing letters to the health insurance companies, employers, and departments of insurance, as well as applying enacted state legislation that overrides some of the detrimental policies. (Utilization management legislation, which has passed in many states, can be easily found on CSRO’s map tool.) These state laws can help patients with everything from harmful step therapy and nonmedical switching policies to accumulator adjustment programs denying application of copay card value to their deductibles. Unfortunately, these laws do not apply to most self-funded employer health plans, which are preempted by ERISA. Consequently, those employees are not protected from harmful changes in formularies and other policies.
 

Forced ‘white bagging’ in self-funded plans

Mandated “white bagging” has become a favorite for health plans covered by large insurance companies, which say that the practice is less expensive than what the physician would charge for the medication. White bagging takes away the ability of the physician to “buy and bill” infusibles that are given in their office. While some rheumatologists may accept this, there are many who do not accept infusible medications coming from another source. Often the health plan will tell the rheumatologist they must accept the white bagging or transfer the patient to another rheumatologist who will. Clearly, many health plans and TPAs do not understand the bonds that are created over the years between rheumatologists and their patients. Ironically, the price of the white-bagged medication charged to the employer has been shown often to be higher than what the physician would have charged.

Some TPAs also convince employers to carve out specialty medications from their policy entirely, leaving the employee uninsured for these meds. These TPAs then attempt to obtain the medications from the manufacturers, foundations, compounding pharmacies, and even other countries for free or highly discounted prices. Even if obtained at no cost, the TPA will charge the employer a percentage of the list price or fee for obtaining it. On the surface, this may seem like a good idea, but there are a number of issues with this, including some that are legally suspect. First of all, uninsuring employees for certain medications to take advantage of patient assistance programs from manufacturers and foundations could be viewed as perfectly legal and perfectly unethical. The legality of this practice is questionable when these companies pretend to be the patient when applying for the assistance or present compounded medication as coming from the manufacturer, or if the TPA obtains the medication from outside the country. Additionally, many employers end up paying 20% of the list price of a medication for a service that physicians provide at no cost for uninsured patients.
 

Educating employers

CSRO’s employer tool kit hopes to educate employers with self-funded health plans about the pitfalls of some of these policies and offers suggestions on how to best navigate these issues for employees with rheumatic diseases. We are hoping to launch this tool kit to small to medium business groups in the near future.

Advocacy is more than just contacting health insurers and those who make our laws and regulations. Although that is important, reaching out to those who employ our patients can be integral to ensuring they get the best care.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

Health care costs are skyrocketing for everyone! For employers, the cost of health insurance is second only to their payroll expense. Per person spending in employer plans grew by 22% between 2015 and 2019. This outpaced inflation and economic growth. Affording health insurance for business owners has become more and more difficult, bordering on desperation for some. Consequently, they are looking for ways to be more efficient in their health care spending. One way is through self-funding their employees’ health care costs. This means that the employer directly pays for the care of their employees. While it has always been thought this was just for very large employers, it is becoming more common with smaller businesses. There is more flexibility and oversight with self-funded plans, and the employer can dictate exactly what benefits are covered within the bounds of the law. While this can make it easier to exclude certain therapies and even institute site-of-care restrictions, it also can make the employer vulnerable to health insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and third-party administrators (TPAs) that promise large discounts in plan and drug spending at the expense of their employees’ health.

Recently enacted state laws often don’t apply

Because employers who self-fund the health care for their employees are increasingly desperate to save money, they will often agree to plans that are less expensive but offer suboptimal care, particularly for patients with chronic diseases requiring expensive medicines. Many employers are not fully informed of the ramifications of these policies, so the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations is creating an educational employer tool kit that not only highlights the importance of disease control for their employees with rheumatic conditions but also outlines the pitfalls and misinformation that may be given to them by the insurance companies, PBMs, and other third parties that administer their health plan.

Policies that sacrifice patient care of course are not exclusive to certain self-funded health plans. The CSRO’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) receives complaints daily from rheumatologists around the country regarding both the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and non-ERISA health plan policies that are harmful to their patients. Our PIRT team assesses these complaints and researches solutions that can include writing letters to the health insurance companies, employers, and departments of insurance, as well as applying enacted state legislation that overrides some of the detrimental policies. (Utilization management legislation, which has passed in many states, can be easily found on CSRO’s map tool.) These state laws can help patients with everything from harmful step therapy and nonmedical switching policies to accumulator adjustment programs denying application of copay card value to their deductibles. Unfortunately, these laws do not apply to most self-funded employer health plans, which are preempted by ERISA. Consequently, those employees are not protected from harmful changes in formularies and other policies.
 

Forced ‘white bagging’ in self-funded plans

Mandated “white bagging” has become a favorite for health plans covered by large insurance companies, which say that the practice is less expensive than what the physician would charge for the medication. White bagging takes away the ability of the physician to “buy and bill” infusibles that are given in their office. While some rheumatologists may accept this, there are many who do not accept infusible medications coming from another source. Often the health plan will tell the rheumatologist they must accept the white bagging or transfer the patient to another rheumatologist who will. Clearly, many health plans and TPAs do not understand the bonds that are created over the years between rheumatologists and their patients. Ironically, the price of the white-bagged medication charged to the employer has been shown often to be higher than what the physician would have charged.

Some TPAs also convince employers to carve out specialty medications from their policy entirely, leaving the employee uninsured for these meds. These TPAs then attempt to obtain the medications from the manufacturers, foundations, compounding pharmacies, and even other countries for free or highly discounted prices. Even if obtained at no cost, the TPA will charge the employer a percentage of the list price or fee for obtaining it. On the surface, this may seem like a good idea, but there are a number of issues with this, including some that are legally suspect. First of all, uninsuring employees for certain medications to take advantage of patient assistance programs from manufacturers and foundations could be viewed as perfectly legal and perfectly unethical. The legality of this practice is questionable when these companies pretend to be the patient when applying for the assistance or present compounded medication as coming from the manufacturer, or if the TPA obtains the medication from outside the country. Additionally, many employers end up paying 20% of the list price of a medication for a service that physicians provide at no cost for uninsured patients.
 

Educating employers

CSRO’s employer tool kit hopes to educate employers with self-funded health plans about the pitfalls of some of these policies and offers suggestions on how to best navigate these issues for employees with rheumatic diseases. We are hoping to launch this tool kit to small to medium business groups in the near future.

Advocacy is more than just contacting health insurers and those who make our laws and regulations. Although that is important, reaching out to those who employ our patients can be integral to ensuring they get the best care.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

Health care costs are skyrocketing for everyone! For employers, the cost of health insurance is second only to their payroll expense. Per person spending in employer plans grew by 22% between 2015 and 2019. This outpaced inflation and economic growth. Affording health insurance for business owners has become more and more difficult, bordering on desperation for some. Consequently, they are looking for ways to be more efficient in their health care spending. One way is through self-funding their employees’ health care costs. This means that the employer directly pays for the care of their employees. While it has always been thought this was just for very large employers, it is becoming more common with smaller businesses. There is more flexibility and oversight with self-funded plans, and the employer can dictate exactly what benefits are covered within the bounds of the law. While this can make it easier to exclude certain therapies and even institute site-of-care restrictions, it also can make the employer vulnerable to health insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and third-party administrators (TPAs) that promise large discounts in plan and drug spending at the expense of their employees’ health.

Recently enacted state laws often don’t apply

Because employers who self-fund the health care for their employees are increasingly desperate to save money, they will often agree to plans that are less expensive but offer suboptimal care, particularly for patients with chronic diseases requiring expensive medicines. Many employers are not fully informed of the ramifications of these policies, so the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations is creating an educational employer tool kit that not only highlights the importance of disease control for their employees with rheumatic conditions but also outlines the pitfalls and misinformation that may be given to them by the insurance companies, PBMs, and other third parties that administer their health plan.

Policies that sacrifice patient care of course are not exclusive to certain self-funded health plans. The CSRO’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) receives complaints daily from rheumatologists around the country regarding both the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and non-ERISA health plan policies that are harmful to their patients. Our PIRT team assesses these complaints and researches solutions that can include writing letters to the health insurance companies, employers, and departments of insurance, as well as applying enacted state legislation that overrides some of the detrimental policies. (Utilization management legislation, which has passed in many states, can be easily found on CSRO’s map tool.) These state laws can help patients with everything from harmful step therapy and nonmedical switching policies to accumulator adjustment programs denying application of copay card value to their deductibles. Unfortunately, these laws do not apply to most self-funded employer health plans, which are preempted by ERISA. Consequently, those employees are not protected from harmful changes in formularies and other policies.
 

Forced ‘white bagging’ in self-funded plans

Mandated “white bagging” has become a favorite for health plans covered by large insurance companies, which say that the practice is less expensive than what the physician would charge for the medication. White bagging takes away the ability of the physician to “buy and bill” infusibles that are given in their office. While some rheumatologists may accept this, there are many who do not accept infusible medications coming from another source. Often the health plan will tell the rheumatologist they must accept the white bagging or transfer the patient to another rheumatologist who will. Clearly, many health plans and TPAs do not understand the bonds that are created over the years between rheumatologists and their patients. Ironically, the price of the white-bagged medication charged to the employer has been shown often to be higher than what the physician would have charged.

Some TPAs also convince employers to carve out specialty medications from their policy entirely, leaving the employee uninsured for these meds. These TPAs then attempt to obtain the medications from the manufacturers, foundations, compounding pharmacies, and even other countries for free or highly discounted prices. Even if obtained at no cost, the TPA will charge the employer a percentage of the list price or fee for obtaining it. On the surface, this may seem like a good idea, but there are a number of issues with this, including some that are legally suspect. First of all, uninsuring employees for certain medications to take advantage of patient assistance programs from manufacturers and foundations could be viewed as perfectly legal and perfectly unethical. The legality of this practice is questionable when these companies pretend to be the patient when applying for the assistance or present compounded medication as coming from the manufacturer, or if the TPA obtains the medication from outside the country. Additionally, many employers end up paying 20% of the list price of a medication for a service that physicians provide at no cost for uninsured patients.
 

Educating employers

CSRO’s employer tool kit hopes to educate employers with self-funded health plans about the pitfalls of some of these policies and offers suggestions on how to best navigate these issues for employees with rheumatic diseases. We are hoping to launch this tool kit to small to medium business groups in the near future.

Advocacy is more than just contacting health insurers and those who make our laws and regulations. Although that is important, reaching out to those who employ our patients can be integral to ensuring they get the best care.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.

The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.

While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.

ironstealth/Thinkstock

Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).

“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.

Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”

“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.

“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.

The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.

While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.

ironstealth/Thinkstock

Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).

“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.

Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”

“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.

“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.

The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.

While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.

ironstealth/Thinkstock

Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).

“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.

Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”

“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.

“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

The path through the U.S. Senate is not yet certain for a bill intended to speed the prior authorization process of insurer-run Medicare Advantage plans, despite the measure having breezed through the House.

House leaders opted to move the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 (HR 3173) without requiring a roll-call vote. The measure was passed on Sept. 14 by a voice vote, an approach used in general with only uncontroversial measures that have broad support. The bill has 191 Democratic and 135 Republican sponsors, representing about three-quarters of the members of the House.

Alicia Ault/Frontline Medical News

“There is no reason that patients should be waiting for medically appropriate care, especially when we know that this can lead to worse outcomes,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said in a Sept. 14 speech on the House floor. “The fundamental promise of Medicare Advantage is undermined when people are delaying care, getting sicker, and ultimately costing Medicare more money.”

Rep. Greg Murphy, MD (R-N.C.), spoke on the House floor that day as well, bringing up cases he has seen in his own urology practice in which prior authorization delays disrupted medical care. One patient wound up in the hospital with abscess after an insurer denied an antibiotic prescription, Rep. Murphy said.

But the Senate appears unlikely at this time to move the prior authorization bill as a standalone measure. Instead, the bill may become part of a larger legislative package focused on health care that the Senate Finance Committee intends to prepare later this year.

The House-passed bill would require insurer-run Medicare plans to respond to expedited requests for prior authorization of services within 24 hours and to other requests within 7 days. This bill also would establish an electronic program for prior authorizations and mandate increased transparency as to how insurers use this tool.
 

CBO: Cost of change would be billions

In seeking to mandate changes in prior authorization, lawmakers likely will need to contend with the issue of a $16 billion cumulative cost estimate for the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. Members of Congress often seek to offset new spending by pairing bills that add to expected costs for the federal government with ones expected to produce savings.

Unlike Rep. Blumenauer, Rep. Murphy, and other backers of the prior authorization streamlining bill, CBO staff estimates that making the mandated changes would raise federal spending, inasmuch as there would be “a greater use of services.”

On Sept. 14, CBO issued a one-page report on the costs of the bill. The CBO report concerns only the bill in question, as is common practice with the office’s estimates.

Prior authorization changes would begin in fiscal 2025 and would add $899 million in spending, or outlays, that year, CBO said. The annual costs from the streamlined prior authorization practices through fiscal 2026 to 2032 range from $1.6 billion to $2.7 billion.

Looking at the CBO estimate against a backdrop of total Medicare Advantage costs, though, may provide important context.

The increases in spending estimated by CBO may suggest that there would be little change in federal spending as a result of streamlining prior authorization practices. These estimates of increased annual spending of $1.6 billion–$2.7 billion are only a small fraction of the current annual cost of insurer-run Medicare, and they represent an even smaller share of the projected expense.

The federal government last year spent about $350 billion on insurer-run plans, excluding Part D drug plan payments, according to the Medicare Advisory Payment Commission (MedPAC).

As of 2021, about 27 million people were enrolled in these plans, accounting for about 46% of the total Medicare population. Enrollment has doubled since 2010, MedPAC said, and it is expected to continue to grow. By 2027, insurer-run Medicare could cover 50% of the program’s population, a figure that may reach 53% by 2031.

Federal payments to these plans will accelerate in the years ahead as insurers attract more people eligible for Medicare as customers. Payments to these private health plans could rise from an expected $418 billion this year to $940.6 billion by 2031, according to the most recent Medicare trustees report.

Good intentions, poor implementation?

Insurer-run Medicare has long enjoyed deep bipartisan support in Congress. That’s due in part to its potential for reducing spending on what are considered low-value treatments, or ones considered unlikely to provide a significant medical benefit, but Rep. Blumenauer is among the members of Congress who see insurer-run Medicare as a path for preserving the giant federal health program. Traditional Medicare has far fewer restrictions on services, which sometimes opens a path for tests and treatments that offer less value for patients.

“I believe that the way traditional fee-for-service Medicare operates is not sustainable and that Medicare Advantage is one of the tools we can use to demonstrate how we can incentivize value,” Rep. Blumenauer said on the House floor. “But this is only possible when the program operates as intended. I have been deeply concerned about the reports of delays in care” caused by the clunky prior authorization processes.

He highlighted a recent report from the internal watchdog group for the Department of Health & Human Services that raises concerns about denials of appropriate care. About 18% of a set of payment denials examined by the Office of Inspector General of HHS in April actually met Medicare coverage rules and plan billing rules.

“For patients and their families, being told that you need to wait longer for care that your doctor tells you that you need is incredibly frustrating and frightening,” Rep. Blumenauer said. “There’s no comfort to be found in the fact that your insurance company needs time to decide if your doctor is right.”
 

Trends in prior authorization

The CBO report does not provide detail on what kind of medical spending would increase under a streamlined prior authorization process in insurer-run Medicare plans.

From trends reported in prior authorization, though, two factors could be at play in what appear to be relatively small estimated increases in Medicare spending from streamlined prior authorization.

One is the work already underway to create less burdensome electronic systems for these requests, such as the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway initiative run by the trade association America’s Health Insurance Plans.

The other factor could be the number of cases in which prior authorization merely causes delays in treatments and tests and thus simply postpones spending while adding to clinicians’ administrative work.

An analysis of prior authorization requests for dermatologic practices affiliated with the University of Utah may represent an extreme example. In a report published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, researchers described what happened with requests made during 1 month, September 2016.

The approval rate for procedures was 99.6% – 100% (95 of 95) for Mohs surgery, and 96% (130 of 131, with 4 additional cases pending) for excisions. These findings supported calls for simplifying prior authorization procedures, “perhaps first by eliminating unnecessary PAs [prior authorizations] and appeals,” Aaron M. Secrest, MD, PhD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and coauthors wrote in the article.

Still, there is some evidence that insurer-run Medicare policies reduce the use of low-value care.

In a study published in JAMA Health Forum, Emily Boudreau, PhD, of insurer Humana Inc, and coauthors from Tufts University, Boston, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia investigated whether insurer-run Medicare could do a better job in reducing the amount of low-value care delivered than the traditional program. They analyzed a set of claims data from 2017 to 2019 for people enrolled in insurer-run and traditional Medicare.

They reported a rate of 23.07 low-value services provided per 100 people in insurer-run Medicare, compared with 25.39 for those in traditional Medicare. Some of the biggest differences reported in the article were in cancer screenings for older people.

As an example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women older than 65 years not be screened for cervical cancer if they have undergone adequate screening in the past and are not at high risk for cervical cancer. There was an annual count of 1.76 screenings for cervical cancer per 100 women older than 65 in the insurer-run Medicare group versus 3.18 for those in traditional Medicare.

The Better Medicare Alliance issued a statement in favor of the House passage of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act.

In it, the group said the measure would “modernize prior authorization while protecting its essential function in facilitating safe, high-value, evidence-based care.” The alliance promotes use of insurer-run Medicare. The board of the Better Medicare Alliance includes executives who serve with firms that run Advantage plans as well as medical organizations and universities.

“With studies showing that up to one-quarter of all health care expenditures are wasted on services with no benefit to the patient, we need a robust, next-generation prior authorization program to deter low-value, and even harmful, care while protecting access to needed treatment and effective therapies,” said A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, in a statement issued by the Better Medicare Alliance. He is a member of the group’s council of scholars.

On the House floor on September 14, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), said he has heard from former colleagues and his medical school classmates that they now spend as much as 40% of their time on administrative work. These distractions from patient care are helping drive physicians away from the practice of medicine.

Still, the internist defended the basic premise of prior authorization while strongly appealing for better systems of handling it.

“Yes, there is a role for prior authorization in limited cases. There is also a role to go back and retrospectively look at how care is being delivered,” Rep. Bera said. “But what is happening today is a travesty. It wasn’t the intention of prior authorization. It is a prior authorization process gone awry.”

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

The path through the U.S. Senate is not yet certain for a bill intended to speed the prior authorization process of insurer-run Medicare Advantage plans, despite the measure having breezed through the House.

House leaders opted to move the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 (HR 3173) without requiring a roll-call vote. The measure was passed on Sept. 14 by a voice vote, an approach used in general with only uncontroversial measures that have broad support. The bill has 191 Democratic and 135 Republican sponsors, representing about three-quarters of the members of the House.

Alicia Ault/Frontline Medical News

“There is no reason that patients should be waiting for medically appropriate care, especially when we know that this can lead to worse outcomes,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said in a Sept. 14 speech on the House floor. “The fundamental promise of Medicare Advantage is undermined when people are delaying care, getting sicker, and ultimately costing Medicare more money.”

Rep. Greg Murphy, MD (R-N.C.), spoke on the House floor that day as well, bringing up cases he has seen in his own urology practice in which prior authorization delays disrupted medical care. One patient wound up in the hospital with abscess after an insurer denied an antibiotic prescription, Rep. Murphy said.

But the Senate appears unlikely at this time to move the prior authorization bill as a standalone measure. Instead, the bill may become part of a larger legislative package focused on health care that the Senate Finance Committee intends to prepare later this year.

The House-passed bill would require insurer-run Medicare plans to respond to expedited requests for prior authorization of services within 24 hours and to other requests within 7 days. This bill also would establish an electronic program for prior authorizations and mandate increased transparency as to how insurers use this tool.
 

CBO: Cost of change would be billions

In seeking to mandate changes in prior authorization, lawmakers likely will need to contend with the issue of a $16 billion cumulative cost estimate for the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. Members of Congress often seek to offset new spending by pairing bills that add to expected costs for the federal government with ones expected to produce savings.

Unlike Rep. Blumenauer, Rep. Murphy, and other backers of the prior authorization streamlining bill, CBO staff estimates that making the mandated changes would raise federal spending, inasmuch as there would be “a greater use of services.”

On Sept. 14, CBO issued a one-page report on the costs of the bill. The CBO report concerns only the bill in question, as is common practice with the office’s estimates.

Prior authorization changes would begin in fiscal 2025 and would add $899 million in spending, or outlays, that year, CBO said. The annual costs from the streamlined prior authorization practices through fiscal 2026 to 2032 range from $1.6 billion to $2.7 billion.

Looking at the CBO estimate against a backdrop of total Medicare Advantage costs, though, may provide important context.

The increases in spending estimated by CBO may suggest that there would be little change in federal spending as a result of streamlining prior authorization practices. These estimates of increased annual spending of $1.6 billion–$2.7 billion are only a small fraction of the current annual cost of insurer-run Medicare, and they represent an even smaller share of the projected expense.

The federal government last year spent about $350 billion on insurer-run plans, excluding Part D drug plan payments, according to the Medicare Advisory Payment Commission (MedPAC).

As of 2021, about 27 million people were enrolled in these plans, accounting for about 46% of the total Medicare population. Enrollment has doubled since 2010, MedPAC said, and it is expected to continue to grow. By 2027, insurer-run Medicare could cover 50% of the program’s population, a figure that may reach 53% by 2031.

Federal payments to these plans will accelerate in the years ahead as insurers attract more people eligible for Medicare as customers. Payments to these private health plans could rise from an expected $418 billion this year to $940.6 billion by 2031, according to the most recent Medicare trustees report.

Good intentions, poor implementation?

Insurer-run Medicare has long enjoyed deep bipartisan support in Congress. That’s due in part to its potential for reducing spending on what are considered low-value treatments, or ones considered unlikely to provide a significant medical benefit, but Rep. Blumenauer is among the members of Congress who see insurer-run Medicare as a path for preserving the giant federal health program. Traditional Medicare has far fewer restrictions on services, which sometimes opens a path for tests and treatments that offer less value for patients.

“I believe that the way traditional fee-for-service Medicare operates is not sustainable and that Medicare Advantage is one of the tools we can use to demonstrate how we can incentivize value,” Rep. Blumenauer said on the House floor. “But this is only possible when the program operates as intended. I have been deeply concerned about the reports of delays in care” caused by the clunky prior authorization processes.

He highlighted a recent report from the internal watchdog group for the Department of Health & Human Services that raises concerns about denials of appropriate care. About 18% of a set of payment denials examined by the Office of Inspector General of HHS in April actually met Medicare coverage rules and plan billing rules.

“For patients and their families, being told that you need to wait longer for care that your doctor tells you that you need is incredibly frustrating and frightening,” Rep. Blumenauer said. “There’s no comfort to be found in the fact that your insurance company needs time to decide if your doctor is right.”
 

Trends in prior authorization

The CBO report does not provide detail on what kind of medical spending would increase under a streamlined prior authorization process in insurer-run Medicare plans.

From trends reported in prior authorization, though, two factors could be at play in what appear to be relatively small estimated increases in Medicare spending from streamlined prior authorization.

One is the work already underway to create less burdensome electronic systems for these requests, such as the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway initiative run by the trade association America’s Health Insurance Plans.

The other factor could be the number of cases in which prior authorization merely causes delays in treatments and tests and thus simply postpones spending while adding to clinicians’ administrative work.

An analysis of prior authorization requests for dermatologic practices affiliated with the University of Utah may represent an extreme example. In a report published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, researchers described what happened with requests made during 1 month, September 2016.

The approval rate for procedures was 99.6% – 100% (95 of 95) for Mohs surgery, and 96% (130 of 131, with 4 additional cases pending) for excisions. These findings supported calls for simplifying prior authorization procedures, “perhaps first by eliminating unnecessary PAs [prior authorizations] and appeals,” Aaron M. Secrest, MD, PhD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and coauthors wrote in the article.

Still, there is some evidence that insurer-run Medicare policies reduce the use of low-value care.

In a study published in JAMA Health Forum, Emily Boudreau, PhD, of insurer Humana Inc, and coauthors from Tufts University, Boston, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia investigated whether insurer-run Medicare could do a better job in reducing the amount of low-value care delivered than the traditional program. They analyzed a set of claims data from 2017 to 2019 for people enrolled in insurer-run and traditional Medicare.

They reported a rate of 23.07 low-value services provided per 100 people in insurer-run Medicare, compared with 25.39 for those in traditional Medicare. Some of the biggest differences reported in the article were in cancer screenings for older people.

As an example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women older than 65 years not be screened for cervical cancer if they have undergone adequate screening in the past and are not at high risk for cervical cancer. There was an annual count of 1.76 screenings for cervical cancer per 100 women older than 65 in the insurer-run Medicare group versus 3.18 for those in traditional Medicare.

The Better Medicare Alliance issued a statement in favor of the House passage of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act.

In it, the group said the measure would “modernize prior authorization while protecting its essential function in facilitating safe, high-value, evidence-based care.” The alliance promotes use of insurer-run Medicare. The board of the Better Medicare Alliance includes executives who serve with firms that run Advantage plans as well as medical organizations and universities.

“With studies showing that up to one-quarter of all health care expenditures are wasted on services with no benefit to the patient, we need a robust, next-generation prior authorization program to deter low-value, and even harmful, care while protecting access to needed treatment and effective therapies,” said A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, in a statement issued by the Better Medicare Alliance. He is a member of the group’s council of scholars.

On the House floor on September 14, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), said he has heard from former colleagues and his medical school classmates that they now spend as much as 40% of their time on administrative work. These distractions from patient care are helping drive physicians away from the practice of medicine.

Still, the internist defended the basic premise of prior authorization while strongly appealing for better systems of handling it.

“Yes, there is a role for prior authorization in limited cases. There is also a role to go back and retrospectively look at how care is being delivered,” Rep. Bera said. “But what is happening today is a travesty. It wasn’t the intention of prior authorization. It is a prior authorization process gone awry.”

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

The path through the U.S. Senate is not yet certain for a bill intended to speed the prior authorization process of insurer-run Medicare Advantage plans, despite the measure having breezed through the House.

House leaders opted to move the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 (HR 3173) without requiring a roll-call vote. The measure was passed on Sept. 14 by a voice vote, an approach used in general with only uncontroversial measures that have broad support. The bill has 191 Democratic and 135 Republican sponsors, representing about three-quarters of the members of the House.

Alicia Ault/Frontline Medical News

“There is no reason that patients should be waiting for medically appropriate care, especially when we know that this can lead to worse outcomes,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said in a Sept. 14 speech on the House floor. “The fundamental promise of Medicare Advantage is undermined when people are delaying care, getting sicker, and ultimately costing Medicare more money.”

Rep. Greg Murphy, MD (R-N.C.), spoke on the House floor that day as well, bringing up cases he has seen in his own urology practice in which prior authorization delays disrupted medical care. One patient wound up in the hospital with abscess after an insurer denied an antibiotic prescription, Rep. Murphy said.

But the Senate appears unlikely at this time to move the prior authorization bill as a standalone measure. Instead, the bill may become part of a larger legislative package focused on health care that the Senate Finance Committee intends to prepare later this year.

The House-passed bill would require insurer-run Medicare plans to respond to expedited requests for prior authorization of services within 24 hours and to other requests within 7 days. This bill also would establish an electronic program for prior authorizations and mandate increased transparency as to how insurers use this tool.
 

CBO: Cost of change would be billions

In seeking to mandate changes in prior authorization, lawmakers likely will need to contend with the issue of a $16 billion cumulative cost estimate for the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. Members of Congress often seek to offset new spending by pairing bills that add to expected costs for the federal government with ones expected to produce savings.

Unlike Rep. Blumenauer, Rep. Murphy, and other backers of the prior authorization streamlining bill, CBO staff estimates that making the mandated changes would raise federal spending, inasmuch as there would be “a greater use of services.”

On Sept. 14, CBO issued a one-page report on the costs of the bill. The CBO report concerns only the bill in question, as is common practice with the office’s estimates.

Prior authorization changes would begin in fiscal 2025 and would add $899 million in spending, or outlays, that year, CBO said. The annual costs from the streamlined prior authorization practices through fiscal 2026 to 2032 range from $1.6 billion to $2.7 billion.

Looking at the CBO estimate against a backdrop of total Medicare Advantage costs, though, may provide important context.

The increases in spending estimated by CBO may suggest that there would be little change in federal spending as a result of streamlining prior authorization practices. These estimates of increased annual spending of $1.6 billion–$2.7 billion are only a small fraction of the current annual cost of insurer-run Medicare, and they represent an even smaller share of the projected expense.

The federal government last year spent about $350 billion on insurer-run plans, excluding Part D drug plan payments, according to the Medicare Advisory Payment Commission (MedPAC).

As of 2021, about 27 million people were enrolled in these plans, accounting for about 46% of the total Medicare population. Enrollment has doubled since 2010, MedPAC said, and it is expected to continue to grow. By 2027, insurer-run Medicare could cover 50% of the program’s population, a figure that may reach 53% by 2031.

Federal payments to these plans will accelerate in the years ahead as insurers attract more people eligible for Medicare as customers. Payments to these private health plans could rise from an expected $418 billion this year to $940.6 billion by 2031, according to the most recent Medicare trustees report.

Good intentions, poor implementation?

Insurer-run Medicare has long enjoyed deep bipartisan support in Congress. That’s due in part to its potential for reducing spending on what are considered low-value treatments, or ones considered unlikely to provide a significant medical benefit, but Rep. Blumenauer is among the members of Congress who see insurer-run Medicare as a path for preserving the giant federal health program. Traditional Medicare has far fewer restrictions on services, which sometimes opens a path for tests and treatments that offer less value for patients.

“I believe that the way traditional fee-for-service Medicare operates is not sustainable and that Medicare Advantage is one of the tools we can use to demonstrate how we can incentivize value,” Rep. Blumenauer said on the House floor. “But this is only possible when the program operates as intended. I have been deeply concerned about the reports of delays in care” caused by the clunky prior authorization processes.

He highlighted a recent report from the internal watchdog group for the Department of Health & Human Services that raises concerns about denials of appropriate care. About 18% of a set of payment denials examined by the Office of Inspector General of HHS in April actually met Medicare coverage rules and plan billing rules.

“For patients and their families, being told that you need to wait longer for care that your doctor tells you that you need is incredibly frustrating and frightening,” Rep. Blumenauer said. “There’s no comfort to be found in the fact that your insurance company needs time to decide if your doctor is right.”
 

Trends in prior authorization

The CBO report does not provide detail on what kind of medical spending would increase under a streamlined prior authorization process in insurer-run Medicare plans.

From trends reported in prior authorization, though, two factors could be at play in what appear to be relatively small estimated increases in Medicare spending from streamlined prior authorization.

One is the work already underway to create less burdensome electronic systems for these requests, such as the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway initiative run by the trade association America’s Health Insurance Plans.

The other factor could be the number of cases in which prior authorization merely causes delays in treatments and tests and thus simply postpones spending while adding to clinicians’ administrative work.

An analysis of prior authorization requests for dermatologic practices affiliated with the University of Utah may represent an extreme example. In a report published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, researchers described what happened with requests made during 1 month, September 2016.

The approval rate for procedures was 99.6% – 100% (95 of 95) for Mohs surgery, and 96% (130 of 131, with 4 additional cases pending) for excisions. These findings supported calls for simplifying prior authorization procedures, “perhaps first by eliminating unnecessary PAs [prior authorizations] and appeals,” Aaron M. Secrest, MD, PhD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and coauthors wrote in the article.

Still, there is some evidence that insurer-run Medicare policies reduce the use of low-value care.

In a study published in JAMA Health Forum, Emily Boudreau, PhD, of insurer Humana Inc, and coauthors from Tufts University, Boston, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia investigated whether insurer-run Medicare could do a better job in reducing the amount of low-value care delivered than the traditional program. They analyzed a set of claims data from 2017 to 2019 for people enrolled in insurer-run and traditional Medicare.

They reported a rate of 23.07 low-value services provided per 100 people in insurer-run Medicare, compared with 25.39 for those in traditional Medicare. Some of the biggest differences reported in the article were in cancer screenings for older people.

As an example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women older than 65 years not be screened for cervical cancer if they have undergone adequate screening in the past and are not at high risk for cervical cancer. There was an annual count of 1.76 screenings for cervical cancer per 100 women older than 65 in the insurer-run Medicare group versus 3.18 for those in traditional Medicare.

The Better Medicare Alliance issued a statement in favor of the House passage of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act.

In it, the group said the measure would “modernize prior authorization while protecting its essential function in facilitating safe, high-value, evidence-based care.” The alliance promotes use of insurer-run Medicare. The board of the Better Medicare Alliance includes executives who serve with firms that run Advantage plans as well as medical organizations and universities.

“With studies showing that up to one-quarter of all health care expenditures are wasted on services with no benefit to the patient, we need a robust, next-generation prior authorization program to deter low-value, and even harmful, care while protecting access to needed treatment and effective therapies,” said A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, in a statement issued by the Better Medicare Alliance. He is a member of the group’s council of scholars.

On the House floor on September 14, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), said he has heard from former colleagues and his medical school classmates that they now spend as much as 40% of their time on administrative work. These distractions from patient care are helping drive physicians away from the practice of medicine.

Still, the internist defended the basic premise of prior authorization while strongly appealing for better systems of handling it.

“Yes, there is a role for prior authorization in limited cases. There is also a role to go back and retrospectively look at how care is being delivered,” Rep. Bera said. “But what is happening today is a travesty. It wasn’t the intention of prior authorization. It is a prior authorization process gone awry.”

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

An analysis of postmarketing suicide data shows that the risk of suicide associated with brodalumab use is similar to that of other biologics prescribed for psoriasis.

The Food and Drug Administration approved brodalumab (Siliq) in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program indicating an increased risk of suicidality.

Half a decade later, “the available worldwide data do not support the notion that brodalumab has a unique risk of increased suicides,” senior investigator John Koo, MD, and coinvestigators at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a preproof article in JAAD International, noting that postmarketing data are “often considered a better reflection of real-world outcomes than clinical trials.”

The researchers extracted data through the end of 2021 on the number of completed suicides for brodalumab and ten other biologics approved for psoriasis from the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), an international publicly available database. The researchers included suicide data on the biologics for all indications.

The authors contacted pharmaceutical companies to determine the total number of patients prescribed each drug, securing mostly “best estimates” data on 5 of the 11 biologics available for psoriasis. The researchers then calculated the number of completed suicides per total number of prescribed patients.

For brodalumab, across 20,871 total prescriptions, there was only one verifiable suicide. It occurred in a Japanese man with terminal cancer and no nearby relatives 36 days after his first dose. The suicide rate for brodalumab was similar to that of ixekizumab, secukinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab.

“Brodalumab is a very efficacious agent and may have the fastest onset of action, yet its usage is minimal compared to the other agents because of this ‘black box’ warning ... despite the fact that it’s the least expensive of any biologic,” Dr. Koo, professor of dermatology and director of the Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Koo, who is board-certified in both dermatology and psychiatry, said he believes the boxed warning was never warranted. All three of the verified completed suicides that occurred during clinical trials of brodalumab for psoriasis were in people who had underlying psychiatric disorders or significant stressors, such as going to jail in one case, and depression and significant isolation in another, he said.

(An analysis of psychiatric adverse events during the psoriasis clinical trials, involving more than 4,000 patients, was published online Oct. 4, 2017, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of research and teledermatology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, said the new data is reassuring.

“We sometimes put it into context [in thinking and counseling about risk] that in the trials for brodalumab, the number of suicide attempts [versus completed suicides] was not an outlier,” he said. “But it’s hard to know what to make of that, so this piece of knowledge that the postmarketing data show there’s no safety signal should give people a lot of reassurance.”

Dr. Han said he has used the medication, a fully human anti-interleukin 17 receptor A monoclonal antibody, in many patients who “have not done so well on other biologics and it’s been a lifesaver ... a couple who have switched over have maintained the longest level of clearance they’ve had with anything. It’s quite striking.”

The efficacy stems at least partly from its mechanism of blocking all cytokines in the IL-17 family – including those involved in the “feedback loops that perpetuate psoriasis” – rather than just one as other biologics do, Dr. Han said.

Usage of the drug has been hindered by the black box warning and REMS program, not only because of the extra steps required and hesitation potentially evoked, but because samples are not available, and because the “formulary access is not what it could have been otherwise,” he noted.

The Siliq REMS patient enrollment form requires patients to pledge awareness of the fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors have occurred in treated patients and that they should seek medical attention if they experience suicidal thoughts or new or worsening depression, anxiety, or other mood changes. Prescribers must be certified with the program and must pledge on each enrollment form that they have counseled their patients.

The box warning states that there is no established causal association between treatment with brodalumab and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB).

Individuals with psoriasis are an “already vulnerable population” who have been shown in reviews and meta-analyses to have a higher prevalence of depression and a higher risk of SIB than those without the disease, Dr. Koo and colleagues wrote in a narrative review published in Cutis .

Regardless of therapy, they wrote in the review, dermatologists should assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of current depression and SIB, referring patients as necessary to primary care or mental health care.

In the psoriasis trials, brodalumab treatment appeared to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety – a finding consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies, they wrote.

The first author on the newly published preproof is Samuel Yeroushalmi, BS, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington.

Siliq is marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Koo disclosed that he is an adviser/consultant/speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, but not those that were involved in the development of brodalumab. Dr. Han said he has relationships with numerous companies, including those that have developed brodalumab and other biologic agents used for psoriasis. The authors declared funding sources as none.

An analysis of postmarketing suicide data shows that the risk of suicide associated with brodalumab use is similar to that of other biologics prescribed for psoriasis.

The Food and Drug Administration approved brodalumab (Siliq) in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program indicating an increased risk of suicidality.

Half a decade later, “the available worldwide data do not support the notion that brodalumab has a unique risk of increased suicides,” senior investigator John Koo, MD, and coinvestigators at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a preproof article in JAAD International, noting that postmarketing data are “often considered a better reflection of real-world outcomes than clinical trials.”

The researchers extracted data through the end of 2021 on the number of completed suicides for brodalumab and ten other biologics approved for psoriasis from the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), an international publicly available database. The researchers included suicide data on the biologics for all indications.

The authors contacted pharmaceutical companies to determine the total number of patients prescribed each drug, securing mostly “best estimates” data on 5 of the 11 biologics available for psoriasis. The researchers then calculated the number of completed suicides per total number of prescribed patients.

For brodalumab, across 20,871 total prescriptions, there was only one verifiable suicide. It occurred in a Japanese man with terminal cancer and no nearby relatives 36 days after his first dose. The suicide rate for brodalumab was similar to that of ixekizumab, secukinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab.

“Brodalumab is a very efficacious agent and may have the fastest onset of action, yet its usage is minimal compared to the other agents because of this ‘black box’ warning ... despite the fact that it’s the least expensive of any biologic,” Dr. Koo, professor of dermatology and director of the Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Koo, who is board-certified in both dermatology and psychiatry, said he believes the boxed warning was never warranted. All three of the verified completed suicides that occurred during clinical trials of brodalumab for psoriasis were in people who had underlying psychiatric disorders or significant stressors, such as going to jail in one case, and depression and significant isolation in another, he said.

(An analysis of psychiatric adverse events during the psoriasis clinical trials, involving more than 4,000 patients, was published online Oct. 4, 2017, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of research and teledermatology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, said the new data is reassuring.

“We sometimes put it into context [in thinking and counseling about risk] that in the trials for brodalumab, the number of suicide attempts [versus completed suicides] was not an outlier,” he said. “But it’s hard to know what to make of that, so this piece of knowledge that the postmarketing data show there’s no safety signal should give people a lot of reassurance.”

Dr. Han said he has used the medication, a fully human anti-interleukin 17 receptor A monoclonal antibody, in many patients who “have not done so well on other biologics and it’s been a lifesaver ... a couple who have switched over have maintained the longest level of clearance they’ve had with anything. It’s quite striking.”

The efficacy stems at least partly from its mechanism of blocking all cytokines in the IL-17 family – including those involved in the “feedback loops that perpetuate psoriasis” – rather than just one as other biologics do, Dr. Han said.

Usage of the drug has been hindered by the black box warning and REMS program, not only because of the extra steps required and hesitation potentially evoked, but because samples are not available, and because the “formulary access is not what it could have been otherwise,” he noted.

The Siliq REMS patient enrollment form requires patients to pledge awareness of the fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors have occurred in treated patients and that they should seek medical attention if they experience suicidal thoughts or new or worsening depression, anxiety, or other mood changes. Prescribers must be certified with the program and must pledge on each enrollment form that they have counseled their patients.

The box warning states that there is no established causal association between treatment with brodalumab and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB).

Individuals with psoriasis are an “already vulnerable population” who have been shown in reviews and meta-analyses to have a higher prevalence of depression and a higher risk of SIB than those without the disease, Dr. Koo and colleagues wrote in a narrative review published in Cutis .

Regardless of therapy, they wrote in the review, dermatologists should assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of current depression and SIB, referring patients as necessary to primary care or mental health care.

In the psoriasis trials, brodalumab treatment appeared to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety – a finding consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies, they wrote.

The first author on the newly published preproof is Samuel Yeroushalmi, BS, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington.

Siliq is marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Koo disclosed that he is an adviser/consultant/speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, but not those that were involved in the development of brodalumab. Dr. Han said he has relationships with numerous companies, including those that have developed brodalumab and other biologic agents used for psoriasis. The authors declared funding sources as none.

An analysis of postmarketing suicide data shows that the risk of suicide associated with brodalumab use is similar to that of other biologics prescribed for psoriasis.

The Food and Drug Administration approved brodalumab (Siliq) in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior and an associated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program indicating an increased risk of suicidality.

Half a decade later, “the available worldwide data do not support the notion that brodalumab has a unique risk of increased suicides,” senior investigator John Koo, MD, and coinvestigators at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a preproof article in JAAD International, noting that postmarketing data are “often considered a better reflection of real-world outcomes than clinical trials.”

The researchers extracted data through the end of 2021 on the number of completed suicides for brodalumab and ten other biologics approved for psoriasis from the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), an international publicly available database. The researchers included suicide data on the biologics for all indications.

The authors contacted pharmaceutical companies to determine the total number of patients prescribed each drug, securing mostly “best estimates” data on 5 of the 11 biologics available for psoriasis. The researchers then calculated the number of completed suicides per total number of prescribed patients.

For brodalumab, across 20,871 total prescriptions, there was only one verifiable suicide. It occurred in a Japanese man with terminal cancer and no nearby relatives 36 days after his first dose. The suicide rate for brodalumab was similar to that of ixekizumab, secukinumab, infliximab, and adalimumab.

“Brodalumab is a very efficacious agent and may have the fastest onset of action, yet its usage is minimal compared to the other agents because of this ‘black box’ warning ... despite the fact that it’s the least expensive of any biologic,” Dr. Koo, professor of dermatology and director of the Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Koo, who is board-certified in both dermatology and psychiatry, said he believes the boxed warning was never warranted. All three of the verified completed suicides that occurred during clinical trials of brodalumab for psoriasis were in people who had underlying psychiatric disorders or significant stressors, such as going to jail in one case, and depression and significant isolation in another, he said.

(An analysis of psychiatric adverse events during the psoriasis clinical trials, involving more than 4,000 patients, was published online Oct. 4, 2017, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of research and teledermatology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, said the new data is reassuring.

“We sometimes put it into context [in thinking and counseling about risk] that in the trials for brodalumab, the number of suicide attempts [versus completed suicides] was not an outlier,” he said. “But it’s hard to know what to make of that, so this piece of knowledge that the postmarketing data show there’s no safety signal should give people a lot of reassurance.”

Dr. Han said he has used the medication, a fully human anti-interleukin 17 receptor A monoclonal antibody, in many patients who “have not done so well on other biologics and it’s been a lifesaver ... a couple who have switched over have maintained the longest level of clearance they’ve had with anything. It’s quite striking.”

The efficacy stems at least partly from its mechanism of blocking all cytokines in the IL-17 family – including those involved in the “feedback loops that perpetuate psoriasis” – rather than just one as other biologics do, Dr. Han said.

Usage of the drug has been hindered by the black box warning and REMS program, not only because of the extra steps required and hesitation potentially evoked, but because samples are not available, and because the “formulary access is not what it could have been otherwise,” he noted.

The Siliq REMS patient enrollment form requires patients to pledge awareness of the fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors have occurred in treated patients and that they should seek medical attention if they experience suicidal thoughts or new or worsening depression, anxiety, or other mood changes. Prescribers must be certified with the program and must pledge on each enrollment form that they have counseled their patients.

The box warning states that there is no established causal association between treatment with brodalumab and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB).

Individuals with psoriasis are an “already vulnerable population” who have been shown in reviews and meta-analyses to have a higher prevalence of depression and a higher risk of SIB than those without the disease, Dr. Koo and colleagues wrote in a narrative review published in Cutis .

Regardless of therapy, they wrote in the review, dermatologists should assess for any history of depression and SIB, and evaluate for signs and symptoms of current depression and SIB, referring patients as necessary to primary care or mental health care.

In the psoriasis trials, brodalumab treatment appeared to improve symptoms of depression and anxiety – a finding consistent with the effects reported for other biologic therapies, they wrote.

The first author on the newly published preproof is Samuel Yeroushalmi, BS, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington.

Siliq is marketed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Koo disclosed that he is an adviser/consultant/speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, but not those that were involved in the development of brodalumab. Dr. Han said he has relationships with numerous companies, including those that have developed brodalumab and other biologic agents used for psoriasis. The authors declared funding sources as none.

Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.

“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.

The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”

The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.

“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”

She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”

Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.

Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
 

Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying

Dr. Iyer called on physicians to “acknowledge that bullying in academic medicine exists and [to] speak up when they witness such events. This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”

She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”

Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”

Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.

“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.

The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”

The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.

“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”

She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”

Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.

Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
 

Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying

Dr. Iyer called on physicians to “acknowledge that bullying in academic medicine exists and [to] speak up when they witness such events. This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”

She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”

Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”

Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.

“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.

The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”

The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.

“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”

She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”

Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.

Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
 

Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying

Dr. Iyer called on physicians to “acknowledge that bullying in academic medicine exists and [to] speak up when they witness such events. This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”

She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”

Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”

Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

GHENT, BELGIUM – Over 10% of patients referred by chiropractors to rheumatology had undiagnosed spondyloarthritis, with axial spondyloarthritis being the most common, according to new data. The U.S. study was aimed at understanding what proportion of back pain patients have undiagnosed spondyloarthritis.

The study also found that the most common cause for which patients see chiropractors is neck/cervical pain.

Atul Deodhar, MD, MRCP, rheumatologist and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, was senior author of the poster that was presented at the 13th International Congress of Spondyloarthritides.

“In the U.S., many people with back pain go to chiropractors, but many chiropractors are not aware of axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] terminology, and very little – if anything – is published in chiropractic literature, “ he said in an interview.

He remarked that the study highlighted the need to develop a better strategy to identify undiagnosed patients, because the yield found in their study was poor (13%). “Patient-reported spondyloarthritis criteria are often poor, and do not match rheumatologist-inquired history,” he noted, adding that, “inflammatory back pain is in fact a poor ‘entry point.’ ”

Ulrich Weber, MD, rheumatologist from the Practice Buchsbaum in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, commented on the findings, saying he often receives delayed referrals from chiropractors, so “it would be very useful if patients could be more easily and accurately identifiable via this route, but the problem is chiropractors do not have a specific training to spot spondyloarthritis.”

He added that he welcomed the study but noted, “the criteria used to identify patients in this study are broad and I’d worry that it would inundate our rheumatology practice. There remains a real need for a good method of identifying the patients.”
 

Referral to rheumatology

Back pain is highly prevalent in the general population, with a global mean lifetime prevalence of 38.9%. Chiropractors treat many patients with back pain of unknown cause.

“In this study, we wanted to see what percentage of patients in chiropractic practice have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis, and what are the common complaints. Our hypothesis was that chiropractors may be missing such patients,” Dr. Deodhar explained.

Dr. Deodhar and colleagues recruited chiropractors from four different parts of the city of Portland into the study. “We think Portland, Oregon, is a typical U.S. city, and our results could be generalized. However, this is our impression alone,” he remarked.

Adults, under the age of 45 years who attended a participating chiropractic clinics between November 2020 and November 2021 for chronic back pain and without a prior diagnosis of spondyloarthritis were eligible for inclusion.

If the patient reported at least one feature of spondyloarthritis in the screening questionnaire they were referred to a rheumatologist for a diagnostic assessment. This assessment involved taking history by telephone, both laboratory tests and imaging, and the patients were categorized as radiographic axSpA, nonradiographic axSpA, peripheral SpA, or no SpA.

The screening questionnaire included the following examples: If the patient was under 45 years and had chronic pain in back, hip or buttocks, then they were asked for more information including whether their pain was gradual (insidious) in onset; if the pain started before the age of 40; and if the pain improved with physical activities or movements. Use of drugs was investigated including whether the pain improved significantly with NSAIDs and whether the patient has current or past heel pains, particularly when waking up in the morning. They were also asked if they have experienced skin psoriasis. Other questions were asked about the presence of uveitis, iritis, family history of psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, or ankylosing spondylitis, and whether the patient had unexplained joint pains plus joint swelling.
 

Ten percent of patients referred to rheumatology

A total of 3,103 visits to chiropractor clinics were included, of which 115 patients were referred to a rheumatologist. Eventually, 63 patients were fully assessed by a rheumatologist.

Of those patients who were fully assessed, 12.7% has spondyloarthritis, with one having confirmed radiographic axSpA, five having nonradiographic SpA, and two having peripheral spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Based on the referral questionnaire, all patients reported at least four SpA criteria were met, said Dr. Deodhar.

Of those patients diagnosed with SpA, 14% (1) has elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level, 14% (1) were HLA-B27 positive, and 14% (1) were identified as having both elevated CRP and HLA-B27 positivity. Sacroiliac joint inflammation was found in 14% (1) on MRI and one had sacroiliac joint inflammation according to modified New York criteria. One (14%) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation on MRI and elevated CRP, and 14% (1) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation and was HLA-B27 positive.

The top complaints reported by patients at chiropractor clinics were neck and cervical spine pain/spasm (16.8%); followed by acute low back pain (11.7%); acute upper back (7.1%); and chronic lower back pain (6.9%).
 

No patients with more than 10 SpA criteria

The performance of an initial diagnostic assessment based on patient reported SpA criteria, as compared with the outcome of the full diagnosis (by a rheumatologist) showed that patients with one to four SpA criteria had a sensitivity of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.85), and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.84). This increased to sensitivity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.17-1.03), and specificity of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.44-0.77) when six SpA criteria were present.

Dr. Deodhar said the results supported a need to further develop the chiropractor’s role in identifying the right patients for referral, and that the study showed that a referral strategy is required to find undiagnosed patients with spondyloarthritis from chiropractic offices. “Chiropractors need education for axSpA, when to suspect, and when to refer,” he asserted. “What referral strategy to use is for debate – the ASAS [Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society] strategy is too sensitive and not specific enough.”

Dr. Deodhar noted that SPARTAN (Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the Spondyloarthritis Research & Treatment Network) is working on a referral strategy that is likely to be more specific, and that more data would be forthcoming soon.

Dr. Deodhar declared affiliations with multiple companies involved in the field unrelated to the study. Dr. Weber declared no relevant disclosures.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Over 10% of patients referred by chiropractors to rheumatology had undiagnosed spondyloarthritis, with axial spondyloarthritis being the most common, according to new data. The U.S. study was aimed at understanding what proportion of back pain patients have undiagnosed spondyloarthritis.

The study also found that the most common cause for which patients see chiropractors is neck/cervical pain.

Atul Deodhar, MD, MRCP, rheumatologist and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, was senior author of the poster that was presented at the 13th International Congress of Spondyloarthritides.

“In the U.S., many people with back pain go to chiropractors, but many chiropractors are not aware of axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] terminology, and very little – if anything – is published in chiropractic literature, “ he said in an interview.

He remarked that the study highlighted the need to develop a better strategy to identify undiagnosed patients, because the yield found in their study was poor (13%). “Patient-reported spondyloarthritis criteria are often poor, and do not match rheumatologist-inquired history,” he noted, adding that, “inflammatory back pain is in fact a poor ‘entry point.’ ”

Ulrich Weber, MD, rheumatologist from the Practice Buchsbaum in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, commented on the findings, saying he often receives delayed referrals from chiropractors, so “it would be very useful if patients could be more easily and accurately identifiable via this route, but the problem is chiropractors do not have a specific training to spot spondyloarthritis.”

He added that he welcomed the study but noted, “the criteria used to identify patients in this study are broad and I’d worry that it would inundate our rheumatology practice. There remains a real need for a good method of identifying the patients.”
 

Referral to rheumatology

Back pain is highly prevalent in the general population, with a global mean lifetime prevalence of 38.9%. Chiropractors treat many patients with back pain of unknown cause.

“In this study, we wanted to see what percentage of patients in chiropractic practice have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis, and what are the common complaints. Our hypothesis was that chiropractors may be missing such patients,” Dr. Deodhar explained.

Dr. Deodhar and colleagues recruited chiropractors from four different parts of the city of Portland into the study. “We think Portland, Oregon, is a typical U.S. city, and our results could be generalized. However, this is our impression alone,” he remarked.

Adults, under the age of 45 years who attended a participating chiropractic clinics between November 2020 and November 2021 for chronic back pain and without a prior diagnosis of spondyloarthritis were eligible for inclusion.

If the patient reported at least one feature of spondyloarthritis in the screening questionnaire they were referred to a rheumatologist for a diagnostic assessment. This assessment involved taking history by telephone, both laboratory tests and imaging, and the patients were categorized as radiographic axSpA, nonradiographic axSpA, peripheral SpA, or no SpA.

The screening questionnaire included the following examples: If the patient was under 45 years and had chronic pain in back, hip or buttocks, then they were asked for more information including whether their pain was gradual (insidious) in onset; if the pain started before the age of 40; and if the pain improved with physical activities or movements. Use of drugs was investigated including whether the pain improved significantly with NSAIDs and whether the patient has current or past heel pains, particularly when waking up in the morning. They were also asked if they have experienced skin psoriasis. Other questions were asked about the presence of uveitis, iritis, family history of psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, or ankylosing spondylitis, and whether the patient had unexplained joint pains plus joint swelling.
 

Ten percent of patients referred to rheumatology

A total of 3,103 visits to chiropractor clinics were included, of which 115 patients were referred to a rheumatologist. Eventually, 63 patients were fully assessed by a rheumatologist.

Of those patients who were fully assessed, 12.7% has spondyloarthritis, with one having confirmed radiographic axSpA, five having nonradiographic SpA, and two having peripheral spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Based on the referral questionnaire, all patients reported at least four SpA criteria were met, said Dr. Deodhar.

Of those patients diagnosed with SpA, 14% (1) has elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level, 14% (1) were HLA-B27 positive, and 14% (1) were identified as having both elevated CRP and HLA-B27 positivity. Sacroiliac joint inflammation was found in 14% (1) on MRI and one had sacroiliac joint inflammation according to modified New York criteria. One (14%) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation on MRI and elevated CRP, and 14% (1) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation and was HLA-B27 positive.

The top complaints reported by patients at chiropractor clinics were neck and cervical spine pain/spasm (16.8%); followed by acute low back pain (11.7%); acute upper back (7.1%); and chronic lower back pain (6.9%).
 

No patients with more than 10 SpA criteria

The performance of an initial diagnostic assessment based on patient reported SpA criteria, as compared with the outcome of the full diagnosis (by a rheumatologist) showed that patients with one to four SpA criteria had a sensitivity of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.85), and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.84). This increased to sensitivity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.17-1.03), and specificity of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.44-0.77) when six SpA criteria were present.

Dr. Deodhar said the results supported a need to further develop the chiropractor’s role in identifying the right patients for referral, and that the study showed that a referral strategy is required to find undiagnosed patients with spondyloarthritis from chiropractic offices. “Chiropractors need education for axSpA, when to suspect, and when to refer,” he asserted. “What referral strategy to use is for debate – the ASAS [Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society] strategy is too sensitive and not specific enough.”

Dr. Deodhar noted that SPARTAN (Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the Spondyloarthritis Research & Treatment Network) is working on a referral strategy that is likely to be more specific, and that more data would be forthcoming soon.

Dr. Deodhar declared affiliations with multiple companies involved in the field unrelated to the study. Dr. Weber declared no relevant disclosures.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Over 10% of patients referred by chiropractors to rheumatology had undiagnosed spondyloarthritis, with axial spondyloarthritis being the most common, according to new data. The U.S. study was aimed at understanding what proportion of back pain patients have undiagnosed spondyloarthritis.

The study also found that the most common cause for which patients see chiropractors is neck/cervical pain.

Atul Deodhar, MD, MRCP, rheumatologist and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, was senior author of the poster that was presented at the 13th International Congress of Spondyloarthritides.

“In the U.S., many people with back pain go to chiropractors, but many chiropractors are not aware of axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] terminology, and very little – if anything – is published in chiropractic literature, “ he said in an interview.

He remarked that the study highlighted the need to develop a better strategy to identify undiagnosed patients, because the yield found in their study was poor (13%). “Patient-reported spondyloarthritis criteria are often poor, and do not match rheumatologist-inquired history,” he noted, adding that, “inflammatory back pain is in fact a poor ‘entry point.’ ”

Ulrich Weber, MD, rheumatologist from the Practice Buchsbaum in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, commented on the findings, saying he often receives delayed referrals from chiropractors, so “it would be very useful if patients could be more easily and accurately identifiable via this route, but the problem is chiropractors do not have a specific training to spot spondyloarthritis.”

He added that he welcomed the study but noted, “the criteria used to identify patients in this study are broad and I’d worry that it would inundate our rheumatology practice. There remains a real need for a good method of identifying the patients.”
 

Referral to rheumatology

Back pain is highly prevalent in the general population, with a global mean lifetime prevalence of 38.9%. Chiropractors treat many patients with back pain of unknown cause.

“In this study, we wanted to see what percentage of patients in chiropractic practice have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis, and what are the common complaints. Our hypothesis was that chiropractors may be missing such patients,” Dr. Deodhar explained.

Dr. Deodhar and colleagues recruited chiropractors from four different parts of the city of Portland into the study. “We think Portland, Oregon, is a typical U.S. city, and our results could be generalized. However, this is our impression alone,” he remarked.

Adults, under the age of 45 years who attended a participating chiropractic clinics between November 2020 and November 2021 for chronic back pain and without a prior diagnosis of spondyloarthritis were eligible for inclusion.

If the patient reported at least one feature of spondyloarthritis in the screening questionnaire they were referred to a rheumatologist for a diagnostic assessment. This assessment involved taking history by telephone, both laboratory tests and imaging, and the patients were categorized as radiographic axSpA, nonradiographic axSpA, peripheral SpA, or no SpA.

The screening questionnaire included the following examples: If the patient was under 45 years and had chronic pain in back, hip or buttocks, then they were asked for more information including whether their pain was gradual (insidious) in onset; if the pain started before the age of 40; and if the pain improved with physical activities or movements. Use of drugs was investigated including whether the pain improved significantly with NSAIDs and whether the patient has current or past heel pains, particularly when waking up in the morning. They were also asked if they have experienced skin psoriasis. Other questions were asked about the presence of uveitis, iritis, family history of psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, or ankylosing spondylitis, and whether the patient had unexplained joint pains plus joint swelling.
 

Ten percent of patients referred to rheumatology

A total of 3,103 visits to chiropractor clinics were included, of which 115 patients were referred to a rheumatologist. Eventually, 63 patients were fully assessed by a rheumatologist.

Of those patients who were fully assessed, 12.7% has spondyloarthritis, with one having confirmed radiographic axSpA, five having nonradiographic SpA, and two having peripheral spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Based on the referral questionnaire, all patients reported at least four SpA criteria were met, said Dr. Deodhar.

Of those patients diagnosed with SpA, 14% (1) has elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level, 14% (1) were HLA-B27 positive, and 14% (1) were identified as having both elevated CRP and HLA-B27 positivity. Sacroiliac joint inflammation was found in 14% (1) on MRI and one had sacroiliac joint inflammation according to modified New York criteria. One (14%) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation on MRI and elevated CRP, and 14% (1) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation and was HLA-B27 positive.

The top complaints reported by patients at chiropractor clinics were neck and cervical spine pain/spasm (16.8%); followed by acute low back pain (11.7%); acute upper back (7.1%); and chronic lower back pain (6.9%).
 

No patients with more than 10 SpA criteria

The performance of an initial diagnostic assessment based on patient reported SpA criteria, as compared with the outcome of the full diagnosis (by a rheumatologist) showed that patients with one to four SpA criteria had a sensitivity of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.85), and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.84). This increased to sensitivity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.17-1.03), and specificity of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.44-0.77) when six SpA criteria were present.

Dr. Deodhar said the results supported a need to further develop the chiropractor’s role in identifying the right patients for referral, and that the study showed that a referral strategy is required to find undiagnosed patients with spondyloarthritis from chiropractic offices. “Chiropractors need education for axSpA, when to suspect, and when to refer,” he asserted. “What referral strategy to use is for debate – the ASAS [Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society] strategy is too sensitive and not specific enough.”

Dr. Deodhar noted that SPARTAN (Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the Spondyloarthritis Research & Treatment Network) is working on a referral strategy that is likely to be more specific, and that more data would be forthcoming soon.

Dr. Deodhar declared affiliations with multiple companies involved in the field unrelated to the study. Dr. Weber declared no relevant disclosures.

I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason: choosing the right EHR system was difficult at best, and once the choice was made, conversion was a nightmare. Plus, there was no clear incentive to do it.

Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.

The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”

Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.

There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.

Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.

The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.

Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.

The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.

Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.

Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.

Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.

With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.

Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason: choosing the right EHR system was difficult at best, and once the choice was made, conversion was a nightmare. Plus, there was no clear incentive to do it.

Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.

The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”

Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.

There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.

Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.

The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.

Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.

The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.

Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.

Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.

Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.

With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.

Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason: choosing the right EHR system was difficult at best, and once the choice was made, conversion was a nightmare. Plus, there was no clear incentive to do it.

Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.

The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”

Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.

There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.

Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.

The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.

Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.

The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.

Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.

Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.

Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.

With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.

Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].