Rheumatology News

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

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 began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

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 began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

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].

Once considered a luxury, hiring a nurse, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant is becoming a necessity in many rheumatology practices.

Seeing the wait lists pile up in her Florida practice, Stacy Yonker, MBA, chief executive officer of Sarasota Arthritis Center, knew she had to make some changes. “Everyone’s aging in the boomer generations. Particularly in Florida, we have a lot of people who retire here. In the more southern demographics, it is a very difficult challenge for practices to get new patients in,” she said.

Ms. Yonker is in the process of hiring several nurse practitioners (NPs) to assist in the clinics and infusion suites, lightening the load for the practice’s 11 rheumatologists.

Hiring an advanced practice provider (APP) to support the practice is just a first step. Getting these additional personnel up to speed means an investment in education and fostering good working relationships with NPs, PAs, and the staff’s physicians. Even more importantly, practices need to set realistic expectations on workload for these new hires.

“I tried to hire them, but I couldn’t keep them,” is a statement Christine A. Stamatos, DNP, ANP-C, hears all the time from rheumatologists. Oftentimes it’s because the practice saddles the new hire with 20 patients a day, said Dr. Stamatos, director of the Fibromyalgia Wellness Center within the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in Huntington, New York. She is also an assistant professor at Hofstra Northwell School of Graduate Nursing and Physician Assistant Studies in Hempstead, New York.

“Twenty patients a day is too much,” Dr. Stamatos said. Overload someone, and they won’t stay. Offer them the support, mentoring, and tools they need to practice in their setting ­­— and they will.
 

Why the Profession Needs APPs

Rheumatology is a much smaller specialty than most, with only a set number of rheumatologists in the field that can provide care to patients. A growing shortage is also looming. Reports from the American College of Rheumatology have projected troubling shortfalls in rheumatologists over the next decade in all regions of the United States.

Many of them aging into retirement “poses a significant issue on being able to continue providing care for the population that experiences the rheumatic disease,” said Ms. Yonker, a director of the National Organization of Rheumatology Management (NORM), a forum that promotes education and advocacy for rheumatology practice managers. People are also living longer, which means more patients are developing arthritis and autoimmune diseases.

Julia M. Swafford, PA-C, a rheumatology physician assistant in Battle Creek, Michigan, sees many advantages of hiring NPs and PAs, and not just from a financial perspective.

Salaries for PAs and NPs aren’t as high and they’re also more accessible than a rheumatologist. “You could train an NP or PA a lot quicker during that same time frame it would take to find a new rheumatology provider,” she offered. And while they may not be as experienced as rheumatologists, “you can kind of mold me on how you like to practice, what medications you may like to use, how you like to treat your patients,” Ms. Swafford said.
 

Hiring Someone With Experience

Recruiting and retaining APPs is not without its challenges.

Finding individuals compatible with this specialty isn’t easy, noted Mark Box, MD, medical director of Carondelet Rheumatology in Kansas City, Missouri. Ideally, APPs should be inquisitive, compassionate, and ready to learn. “Rheumatology is a cognitive specialty where you have to fit many pieces together. You need an APP who wants to embrace that,” he said.

The profession isn’t that “sexy” either, noted Katie Taylor, Carondelet’s practice manager. Patients are often in head-to-toe pain, and miserable. Many have been to other specialists without answers to their questions. For these reasons, rheumatology can be a hard sell for some PAs and NPs.

Nurse practitioners aren’t always comfortable with administering things such as controlled medications, for example. “It’s a hard patient population, and it’s a specialty of exclusion. You’ve got to be really smart to understand our diseases and our processes and our drugs,” Ms. Taylor said. In other words, it’s a difficult environment for an NP to walk into if their previous experience has been limited to upper respiratory issues and urinary tract infections in the primary care setting.

When hiring an APP, rheumatologists should look for someone who demonstrates an interest in lifelong learning, because the field is changing every day. They should exhibit good scores in educational training and have experience working in an emergency department or another field that translates well into rheumatology such as critical care, immunology, hematology, and orthopedics, she said.

Carondelet Rheumatology was specifically looking for an NP with rheumatology experience to support Dr. Box’s solo practice.

He was facing enormous pressure to be in the office every single day of the week. The practice had to cancel patients for its infusion suite on a regular basis when he was out of the office, Ms. Taylor said. “We couldn’t see new patients, and he wasn’t able to touch as many patients as he wanted to. The doctor takes the oath of touching as many in your community as possible, and you’re limited when you’re a one-man show.”

The practice eventually found an NP who already knew how to do joint injections. “We started her with easier diagnoses for things like osteoporosis and gout. She had an orthopedic background, so she was familiar with some of those diseases,” she said.

Even so, she often leaves with questions every day. “It’s a commitment for her to understand and learn so much,” Ms. Taylor said.

New hires will need support from the practice to get comfortable with rheumatology, Dr. Stamatos said. Responsibility should come in gradual steps.

Instead of loading an NP with 20 patients a day, 2 or 3 patients in the first quarter, eventually graduating to 6-8 patients is a more realistic expectation, Dr. Stamatos advised.
 

Shadowing the Physician

Partnerships with physicians is a critical component to this onboarding process.

A nurse practitioner recently hired at Dr. Stamatos’ practice works alongside a physician to manage a panel of 25 patients. “We make sure she gets her training, the resources she needs. I personally meet with her to make sure her education is moving forward, connecting her with radiology, pulmonary, hematology,” and other areas of the practice relevant to her training, she added.

The NP also attends weekly grand rounds and case conferences with the fellows. This is the type of well-rounded support any APP needs, she stressed. “Without proper training, you lose people.”

At Sarasota Arthritis Center, NPs help cover the suites but also get assigned to specific physicians so that they can familiarize themselves with that physician’s panel of patients.

“When we start an APP, they shadow for about twice as long as a new physician would. Usually, they’re shadowing for about 6 weeks, just kind of learning the space. There’s a lot of nurse practitioners or PAs who may not have prior rheumatology experience, so we’re essentially training them from the ground up on rheumatology,” Ms. Yonker said.

Pairing them with one provider often directs what type of disease state they focus on, she continued. This dynamic relationship helps guide decisions on whether to include these NPs in the care of patients with more complex diseases.

At least in her practice, the NPs do not see any new patients. They are simply part of the larger care team. “That’s kind of how we present it to our patients, and it makes them feel more comfortable just because they know that they’re not necessarily being handed off to somebody — that the doctor is still overseeing their care,” Ms. Yonker said.

At the same time, the NPs know that they’re supported, that they too have access to tools and mentorship if they need it, she added.

The new NP at Carondelet Rheumatology piggybacked on the doctor’s schedule for 3 months, slowly taking on infusion patients so she could get familiar with their diseases and respective drugs. Eventually, she got her own schedule and was able to take on new patients.

It’s a team effort, Ms. Taylor noted. The NP does the preliminary workup and then the physician comes in and greets the new patient. Together, they develop a follow-up plan for the patient.
 

Education Resources for Practices

In the case of Dr. Box’s one-physician practice, he was looking for an NP who was willing to be independent and cover things in his absence. “The training has to be there to accomplish that,” said Dr. Box, who likened the training of APPs to a medical residency.

Encouraging them to ask questions, do continuing medical education online and outside reading, are important steps, he added.

In a recent editorial, rheumatologists Eli M. Miloslavsky, MD, and Bethany Marston, MD, offered some strategies for better prepping the APP workforce to meet the demands of rheumatology practices. “Consideration should be given to formal curricula or training programs to help APPs achieve both competence and confidence in treating rheumatologic conditions,” they offered, suggesting an online curriculum developed by the ACR for such a purpose. Fellowship training should also focus on working effectively with APPs, they added.

“Finally, incorporating APPs more effectively into rheumatology professional societies and supporting practices in hiring and training APPs will all be important steps in addressing the rheumatology workforce shortage,” Dr. Miloslavsky and Dr. Marston wrote.

Ms. Yonker said all her APPs take various courses that the ACR and other organizations provide for rheumatology-specific, midlevel positions. “We provide as much training as possible for them to feel comfortable in this space. They are set directly with a physician for a long time and then eventually go into their own space.”

In addition to ACR, the Rheumatology Nurses Society and the Association of Women in Rheumatology offer excellent online training resources for APPs, Ms. Yonker said. “Also, the Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation offers an osteoporosis fracture liaison certification which we put APPs through as well,” she added.

Rheumatology practices should also look into an important clinical training grant program from the Rheumatology Research Foundation, Dr. Stamatos advised.

To date, they have “funded almost everyone that applies,” she said. Each grantee receives $25,000 to support training and education involved in onboarding an APP to a rheumatology practice. The money covers attendance at a live rheumatology conference, online educational programs, textbooks, and any society memberships while defraying the cost of training this employee. To increase awareness of the program, the foundation has since expanded the number of available submission dates and the number of grant awardees per year. Currently, the application deadlines for the grants are December 1 and March 1.

For her own health system, Dr. Stamatos has been working on a rheumatology fellowship program for APPs. Through simulation labs, leadership exercises, and other activities, these APPs will learn how to transition from being a new provider to someone who can become part of a practice, she said.

APPs themselves can also get proactive in this learning cycle, Ms. Swafford said. In her view, both APPs and rheumatologists should be conducting didactic lectures and organizing elective rotations with medical students to get them excited about the field. This would establish a good education base that would encourage PAs and NPs to choose rheumatology.

“That’s a huge thing that’s probably missing,” Ms. Swafford said.
 

Buy-in From the Doctor

No recruitment effort is going to work if the rheumatologists in the practice aren’t committed to the model of having an APP, Ms. Yonker said. “Everybody wants to know their purpose in their company and that they’re valued and they’re needed. And so, I think a pitfall would be if your rheumatologist is not sold on the model of expanding the care team. Because this takes work on behalf of the doctor.”

Rheumatologists are very busy, so it’s a hard sell for them to take time out of their busy clinics to train somebody to do a good job taking care of their patients, Ms. Taylor agreed. “I think that we need the physicians that have had success with this and allow them to coach the physicians that are still resistant.”

In his small practice, Dr. Box has encouraged his NP to assist with practice improvements, working with the office manager. These workers are providers and need to be treated as such, he said. “They need to feel like they contribute to the practice more than just grinding through patients.”

Peer support is another successful ingredient for these workers. Ms. Taylor’s NP finds the time to commiserate with her fellow nurse practitioners — other rheumatology nurses who are also learning the ropes. Rheumatologists are smart, and they can be very intimidating, Ms. Taylor said. In their small office, the rheumatologist is her only peer.

“She likes to get out and sort of integrate with other nurse practitioners that are learning too.”
 

When APPs Make a Difference

Practices that take on APPs are reporting positive metrics — mainly, shorter wait times for patients. Ms. Yonker’s physicians have been able to add on one to two new patients a day. Wait times have since dwindled from a 5-month to a 3-month wait with the addition of the NPs. “Three months is still long, but we’re working on getting it to that ideal 6-week wait period, which we’re hoping we can accomplish. So we’re able to get more new patients in for sure,” she said.

Prior to hiring an NP, Ms. Taylor’s practice had to defer acceptances for new patients by at least a year. Now, they’re able to accept about half of all new patient referrals. With the NP on board, “We can get them in within 30 days,” she said.

Sometimes, an APP will go beyond their scope of work to make a difference and better support patients.

Patients with rheumatic and osteopathic conditions are often underdiagnosed in the primary care space. As a result, they are not treated as often as they should be. Seeing a need for specialty care, Ms. Swafford took action.

She currently runs the only bone health clinic in southwest Michigan, coordinating with rheumatologists, NPs, urgent care, hospitalists, and interventional radiologists to attend to these patients more quickly and reduce wait times for care. Specialists will flag things such as nontraumatic hip fractures and vertebral fractures and refer them to Ms. Swafford’s clinic, which is part of Bronson Rheumatology Specialists.

The clinic gets quite a few referrals, and the practice is growing. “Usually, they don’t take as long as a rheumatology referral for a workup, so we can see them a little bit quicker,” usually within 3 weeks, she added.

APPs have an opportunity to make their mark in rheumatology at a time when the profession is experiencing significant gaps in care, Ms. Swafford continued. “Unless we find a way to fill that niche, we’re going to be in a world of trouble in the next 10, 20 years.”

None of the sources reported any disclosures or conflicts of interest.

Once considered a luxury, hiring a nurse, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant is becoming a necessity in many rheumatology practices.

Seeing the wait lists pile up in her Florida practice, Stacy Yonker, MBA, chief executive officer of Sarasota Arthritis Center, knew she had to make some changes. “Everyone’s aging in the boomer generations. Particularly in Florida, we have a lot of people who retire here. In the more southern demographics, it is a very difficult challenge for practices to get new patients in,” she said.

Ms. Yonker is in the process of hiring several nurse practitioners (NPs) to assist in the clinics and infusion suites, lightening the load for the practice’s 11 rheumatologists.

Hiring an advanced practice provider (APP) to support the practice is just a first step. Getting these additional personnel up to speed means an investment in education and fostering good working relationships with NPs, PAs, and the staff’s physicians. Even more importantly, practices need to set realistic expectations on workload for these new hires.

“I tried to hire them, but I couldn’t keep them,” is a statement Christine A. Stamatos, DNP, ANP-C, hears all the time from rheumatologists. Oftentimes it’s because the practice saddles the new hire with 20 patients a day, said Dr. Stamatos, director of the Fibromyalgia Wellness Center within the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in Huntington, New York. She is also an assistant professor at Hofstra Northwell School of Graduate Nursing and Physician Assistant Studies in Hempstead, New York.

“Twenty patients a day is too much,” Dr. Stamatos said. Overload someone, and they won’t stay. Offer them the support, mentoring, and tools they need to practice in their setting ­­— and they will.
 

Why the Profession Needs APPs

Rheumatology is a much smaller specialty than most, with only a set number of rheumatologists in the field that can provide care to patients. A growing shortage is also looming. Reports from the American College of Rheumatology have projected troubling shortfalls in rheumatologists over the next decade in all regions of the United States.

Many of them aging into retirement “poses a significant issue on being able to continue providing care for the population that experiences the rheumatic disease,” said Ms. Yonker, a director of the National Organization of Rheumatology Management (NORM), a forum that promotes education and advocacy for rheumatology practice managers. People are also living longer, which means more patients are developing arthritis and autoimmune diseases.

Julia M. Swafford, PA-C, a rheumatology physician assistant in Battle Creek, Michigan, sees many advantages of hiring NPs and PAs, and not just from a financial perspective.

Salaries for PAs and NPs aren’t as high and they’re also more accessible than a rheumatologist. “You could train an NP or PA a lot quicker during that same time frame it would take to find a new rheumatology provider,” she offered. And while they may not be as experienced as rheumatologists, “you can kind of mold me on how you like to practice, what medications you may like to use, how you like to treat your patients,” Ms. Swafford said.
 

Hiring Someone With Experience

Recruiting and retaining APPs is not without its challenges.

Finding individuals compatible with this specialty isn’t easy, noted Mark Box, MD, medical director of Carondelet Rheumatology in Kansas City, Missouri. Ideally, APPs should be inquisitive, compassionate, and ready to learn. “Rheumatology is a cognitive specialty where you have to fit many pieces together. You need an APP who wants to embrace that,” he said.

The profession isn’t that “sexy” either, noted Katie Taylor, Carondelet’s practice manager. Patients are often in head-to-toe pain, and miserable. Many have been to other specialists without answers to their questions. For these reasons, rheumatology can be a hard sell for some PAs and NPs.

Nurse practitioners aren’t always comfortable with administering things such as controlled medications, for example. “It’s a hard patient population, and it’s a specialty of exclusion. You’ve got to be really smart to understand our diseases and our processes and our drugs,” Ms. Taylor said. In other words, it’s a difficult environment for an NP to walk into if their previous experience has been limited to upper respiratory issues and urinary tract infections in the primary care setting.

When hiring an APP, rheumatologists should look for someone who demonstrates an interest in lifelong learning, because the field is changing every day. They should exhibit good scores in educational training and have experience working in an emergency department or another field that translates well into rheumatology such as critical care, immunology, hematology, and orthopedics, she said.

Carondelet Rheumatology was specifically looking for an NP with rheumatology experience to support Dr. Box’s solo practice.

He was facing enormous pressure to be in the office every single day of the week. The practice had to cancel patients for its infusion suite on a regular basis when he was out of the office, Ms. Taylor said. “We couldn’t see new patients, and he wasn’t able to touch as many patients as he wanted to. The doctor takes the oath of touching as many in your community as possible, and you’re limited when you’re a one-man show.”

The practice eventually found an NP who already knew how to do joint injections. “We started her with easier diagnoses for things like osteoporosis and gout. She had an orthopedic background, so she was familiar with some of those diseases,” she said.

Even so, she often leaves with questions every day. “It’s a commitment for her to understand and learn so much,” Ms. Taylor said.

New hires will need support from the practice to get comfortable with rheumatology, Dr. Stamatos said. Responsibility should come in gradual steps.

Instead of loading an NP with 20 patients a day, 2 or 3 patients in the first quarter, eventually graduating to 6-8 patients is a more realistic expectation, Dr. Stamatos advised.
 

Shadowing the Physician

Partnerships with physicians is a critical component to this onboarding process.

A nurse practitioner recently hired at Dr. Stamatos’ practice works alongside a physician to manage a panel of 25 patients. “We make sure she gets her training, the resources she needs. I personally meet with her to make sure her education is moving forward, connecting her with radiology, pulmonary, hematology,” and other areas of the practice relevant to her training, she added.

The NP also attends weekly grand rounds and case conferences with the fellows. This is the type of well-rounded support any APP needs, she stressed. “Without proper training, you lose people.”

At Sarasota Arthritis Center, NPs help cover the suites but also get assigned to specific physicians so that they can familiarize themselves with that physician’s panel of patients.

“When we start an APP, they shadow for about twice as long as a new physician would. Usually, they’re shadowing for about 6 weeks, just kind of learning the space. There’s a lot of nurse practitioners or PAs who may not have prior rheumatology experience, so we’re essentially training them from the ground up on rheumatology,” Ms. Yonker said.

Pairing them with one provider often directs what type of disease state they focus on, she continued. This dynamic relationship helps guide decisions on whether to include these NPs in the care of patients with more complex diseases.

At least in her practice, the NPs do not see any new patients. They are simply part of the larger care team. “That’s kind of how we present it to our patients, and it makes them feel more comfortable just because they know that they’re not necessarily being handed off to somebody — that the doctor is still overseeing their care,” Ms. Yonker said.

At the same time, the NPs know that they’re supported, that they too have access to tools and mentorship if they need it, she added.

The new NP at Carondelet Rheumatology piggybacked on the doctor’s schedule for 3 months, slowly taking on infusion patients so she could get familiar with their diseases and respective drugs. Eventually, she got her own schedule and was able to take on new patients.

It’s a team effort, Ms. Taylor noted. The NP does the preliminary workup and then the physician comes in and greets the new patient. Together, they develop a follow-up plan for the patient.
 

Education Resources for Practices

In the case of Dr. Box’s one-physician practice, he was looking for an NP who was willing to be independent and cover things in his absence. “The training has to be there to accomplish that,” said Dr. Box, who likened the training of APPs to a medical residency.

Encouraging them to ask questions, do continuing medical education online and outside reading, are important steps, he added.

In a recent editorial, rheumatologists Eli M. Miloslavsky, MD, and Bethany Marston, MD, offered some strategies for better prepping the APP workforce to meet the demands of rheumatology practices. “Consideration should be given to formal curricula or training programs to help APPs achieve both competence and confidence in treating rheumatologic conditions,” they offered, suggesting an online curriculum developed by the ACR for such a purpose. Fellowship training should also focus on working effectively with APPs, they added.

“Finally, incorporating APPs more effectively into rheumatology professional societies and supporting practices in hiring and training APPs will all be important steps in addressing the rheumatology workforce shortage,” Dr. Miloslavsky and Dr. Marston wrote.

Ms. Yonker said all her APPs take various courses that the ACR and other organizations provide for rheumatology-specific, midlevel positions. “We provide as much training as possible for them to feel comfortable in this space. They are set directly with a physician for a long time and then eventually go into their own space.”

In addition to ACR, the Rheumatology Nurses Society and the Association of Women in Rheumatology offer excellent online training resources for APPs, Ms. Yonker said. “Also, the Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation offers an osteoporosis fracture liaison certification which we put APPs through as well,” she added.

Rheumatology practices should also look into an important clinical training grant program from the Rheumatology Research Foundation, Dr. Stamatos advised.

To date, they have “funded almost everyone that applies,” she said. Each grantee receives $25,000 to support training and education involved in onboarding an APP to a rheumatology practice. The money covers attendance at a live rheumatology conference, online educational programs, textbooks, and any society memberships while defraying the cost of training this employee. To increase awareness of the program, the foundation has since expanded the number of available submission dates and the number of grant awardees per year. Currently, the application deadlines for the grants are December 1 and March 1.

For her own health system, Dr. Stamatos has been working on a rheumatology fellowship program for APPs. Through simulation labs, leadership exercises, and other activities, these APPs will learn how to transition from being a new provider to someone who can become part of a practice, she said.

APPs themselves can also get proactive in this learning cycle, Ms. Swafford said. In her view, both APPs and rheumatologists should be conducting didactic lectures and organizing elective rotations with medical students to get them excited about the field. This would establish a good education base that would encourage PAs and NPs to choose rheumatology.

“That’s a huge thing that’s probably missing,” Ms. Swafford said.
 

Buy-in From the Doctor

No recruitment effort is going to work if the rheumatologists in the practice aren’t committed to the model of having an APP, Ms. Yonker said. “Everybody wants to know their purpose in their company and that they’re valued and they’re needed. And so, I think a pitfall would be if your rheumatologist is not sold on the model of expanding the care team. Because this takes work on behalf of the doctor.”

Rheumatologists are very busy, so it’s a hard sell for them to take time out of their busy clinics to train somebody to do a good job taking care of their patients, Ms. Taylor agreed. “I think that we need the physicians that have had success with this and allow them to coach the physicians that are still resistant.”

In his small practice, Dr. Box has encouraged his NP to assist with practice improvements, working with the office manager. These workers are providers and need to be treated as such, he said. “They need to feel like they contribute to the practice more than just grinding through patients.”

Peer support is another successful ingredient for these workers. Ms. Taylor’s NP finds the time to commiserate with her fellow nurse practitioners — other rheumatology nurses who are also learning the ropes. Rheumatologists are smart, and they can be very intimidating, Ms. Taylor said. In their small office, the rheumatologist is her only peer.

“She likes to get out and sort of integrate with other nurse practitioners that are learning too.”
 

When APPs Make a Difference

Practices that take on APPs are reporting positive metrics — mainly, shorter wait times for patients. Ms. Yonker’s physicians have been able to add on one to two new patients a day. Wait times have since dwindled from a 5-month to a 3-month wait with the addition of the NPs. “Three months is still long, but we’re working on getting it to that ideal 6-week wait period, which we’re hoping we can accomplish. So we’re able to get more new patients in for sure,” she said.

Prior to hiring an NP, Ms. Taylor’s practice had to defer acceptances for new patients by at least a year. Now, they’re able to accept about half of all new patient referrals. With the NP on board, “We can get them in within 30 days,” she said.

Sometimes, an APP will go beyond their scope of work to make a difference and better support patients.

Patients with rheumatic and osteopathic conditions are often underdiagnosed in the primary care space. As a result, they are not treated as often as they should be. Seeing a need for specialty care, Ms. Swafford took action.

She currently runs the only bone health clinic in southwest Michigan, coordinating with rheumatologists, NPs, urgent care, hospitalists, and interventional radiologists to attend to these patients more quickly and reduce wait times for care. Specialists will flag things such as nontraumatic hip fractures and vertebral fractures and refer them to Ms. Swafford’s clinic, which is part of Bronson Rheumatology Specialists.

The clinic gets quite a few referrals, and the practice is growing. “Usually, they don’t take as long as a rheumatology referral for a workup, so we can see them a little bit quicker,” usually within 3 weeks, she added.

APPs have an opportunity to make their mark in rheumatology at a time when the profession is experiencing significant gaps in care, Ms. Swafford continued. “Unless we find a way to fill that niche, we’re going to be in a world of trouble in the next 10, 20 years.”

None of the sources reported any disclosures or conflicts of interest.

Once considered a luxury, hiring a nurse, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant is becoming a necessity in many rheumatology practices.

Seeing the wait lists pile up in her Florida practice, Stacy Yonker, MBA, chief executive officer of Sarasota Arthritis Center, knew she had to make some changes. “Everyone’s aging in the boomer generations. Particularly in Florida, we have a lot of people who retire here. In the more southern demographics, it is a very difficult challenge for practices to get new patients in,” she said.

Ms. Yonker is in the process of hiring several nurse practitioners (NPs) to assist in the clinics and infusion suites, lightening the load for the practice’s 11 rheumatologists.

Hiring an advanced practice provider (APP) to support the practice is just a first step. Getting these additional personnel up to speed means an investment in education and fostering good working relationships with NPs, PAs, and the staff’s physicians. Even more importantly, practices need to set realistic expectations on workload for these new hires.

“I tried to hire them, but I couldn’t keep them,” is a statement Christine A. Stamatos, DNP, ANP-C, hears all the time from rheumatologists. Oftentimes it’s because the practice saddles the new hire with 20 patients a day, said Dr. Stamatos, director of the Fibromyalgia Wellness Center within the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in Huntington, New York. She is also an assistant professor at Hofstra Northwell School of Graduate Nursing and Physician Assistant Studies in Hempstead, New York.

“Twenty patients a day is too much,” Dr. Stamatos said. Overload someone, and they won’t stay. Offer them the support, mentoring, and tools they need to practice in their setting ­­— and they will.
 

Why the Profession Needs APPs

Rheumatology is a much smaller specialty than most, with only a set number of rheumatologists in the field that can provide care to patients. A growing shortage is also looming. Reports from the American College of Rheumatology have projected troubling shortfalls in rheumatologists over the next decade in all regions of the United States.

Many of them aging into retirement “poses a significant issue on being able to continue providing care for the population that experiences the rheumatic disease,” said Ms. Yonker, a director of the National Organization of Rheumatology Management (NORM), a forum that promotes education and advocacy for rheumatology practice managers. People are also living longer, which means more patients are developing arthritis and autoimmune diseases.

Julia M. Swafford, PA-C, a rheumatology physician assistant in Battle Creek, Michigan, sees many advantages of hiring NPs and PAs, and not just from a financial perspective.

Salaries for PAs and NPs aren’t as high and they’re also more accessible than a rheumatologist. “You could train an NP or PA a lot quicker during that same time frame it would take to find a new rheumatology provider,” she offered. And while they may not be as experienced as rheumatologists, “you can kind of mold me on how you like to practice, what medications you may like to use, how you like to treat your patients,” Ms. Swafford said.
 

Hiring Someone With Experience

Recruiting and retaining APPs is not without its challenges.

Finding individuals compatible with this specialty isn’t easy, noted Mark Box, MD, medical director of Carondelet Rheumatology in Kansas City, Missouri. Ideally, APPs should be inquisitive, compassionate, and ready to learn. “Rheumatology is a cognitive specialty where you have to fit many pieces together. You need an APP who wants to embrace that,” he said.

The profession isn’t that “sexy” either, noted Katie Taylor, Carondelet’s practice manager. Patients are often in head-to-toe pain, and miserable. Many have been to other specialists without answers to their questions. For these reasons, rheumatology can be a hard sell for some PAs and NPs.

Nurse practitioners aren’t always comfortable with administering things such as controlled medications, for example. “It’s a hard patient population, and it’s a specialty of exclusion. You’ve got to be really smart to understand our diseases and our processes and our drugs,” Ms. Taylor said. In other words, it’s a difficult environment for an NP to walk into if their previous experience has been limited to upper respiratory issues and urinary tract infections in the primary care setting.

When hiring an APP, rheumatologists should look for someone who demonstrates an interest in lifelong learning, because the field is changing every day. They should exhibit good scores in educational training and have experience working in an emergency department or another field that translates well into rheumatology such as critical care, immunology, hematology, and orthopedics, she said.

Carondelet Rheumatology was specifically looking for an NP with rheumatology experience to support Dr. Box’s solo practice.

He was facing enormous pressure to be in the office every single day of the week. The practice had to cancel patients for its infusion suite on a regular basis when he was out of the office, Ms. Taylor said. “We couldn’t see new patients, and he wasn’t able to touch as many patients as he wanted to. The doctor takes the oath of touching as many in your community as possible, and you’re limited when you’re a one-man show.”

The practice eventually found an NP who already knew how to do joint injections. “We started her with easier diagnoses for things like osteoporosis and gout. She had an orthopedic background, so she was familiar with some of those diseases,” she said.

Even so, she often leaves with questions every day. “It’s a commitment for her to understand and learn so much,” Ms. Taylor said.

New hires will need support from the practice to get comfortable with rheumatology, Dr. Stamatos said. Responsibility should come in gradual steps.

Instead of loading an NP with 20 patients a day, 2 or 3 patients in the first quarter, eventually graduating to 6-8 patients is a more realistic expectation, Dr. Stamatos advised.
 

Shadowing the Physician

Partnerships with physicians is a critical component to this onboarding process.

A nurse practitioner recently hired at Dr. Stamatos’ practice works alongside a physician to manage a panel of 25 patients. “We make sure she gets her training, the resources she needs. I personally meet with her to make sure her education is moving forward, connecting her with radiology, pulmonary, hematology,” and other areas of the practice relevant to her training, she added.

The NP also attends weekly grand rounds and case conferences with the fellows. This is the type of well-rounded support any APP needs, she stressed. “Without proper training, you lose people.”

At Sarasota Arthritis Center, NPs help cover the suites but also get assigned to specific physicians so that they can familiarize themselves with that physician’s panel of patients.

“When we start an APP, they shadow for about twice as long as a new physician would. Usually, they’re shadowing for about 6 weeks, just kind of learning the space. There’s a lot of nurse practitioners or PAs who may not have prior rheumatology experience, so we’re essentially training them from the ground up on rheumatology,” Ms. Yonker said.

Pairing them with one provider often directs what type of disease state they focus on, she continued. This dynamic relationship helps guide decisions on whether to include these NPs in the care of patients with more complex diseases.

At least in her practice, the NPs do not see any new patients. They are simply part of the larger care team. “That’s kind of how we present it to our patients, and it makes them feel more comfortable just because they know that they’re not necessarily being handed off to somebody — that the doctor is still overseeing their care,” Ms. Yonker said.

At the same time, the NPs know that they’re supported, that they too have access to tools and mentorship if they need it, she added.

The new NP at Carondelet Rheumatology piggybacked on the doctor’s schedule for 3 months, slowly taking on infusion patients so she could get familiar with their diseases and respective drugs. Eventually, she got her own schedule and was able to take on new patients.

It’s a team effort, Ms. Taylor noted. The NP does the preliminary workup and then the physician comes in and greets the new patient. Together, they develop a follow-up plan for the patient.
 

Education Resources for Practices

In the case of Dr. Box’s one-physician practice, he was looking for an NP who was willing to be independent and cover things in his absence. “The training has to be there to accomplish that,” said Dr. Box, who likened the training of APPs to a medical residency.

Encouraging them to ask questions, do continuing medical education online and outside reading, are important steps, he added.

In a recent editorial, rheumatologists Eli M. Miloslavsky, MD, and Bethany Marston, MD, offered some strategies for better prepping the APP workforce to meet the demands of rheumatology practices. “Consideration should be given to formal curricula or training programs to help APPs achieve both competence and confidence in treating rheumatologic conditions,” they offered, suggesting an online curriculum developed by the ACR for such a purpose. Fellowship training should also focus on working effectively with APPs, they added.

“Finally, incorporating APPs more effectively into rheumatology professional societies and supporting practices in hiring and training APPs will all be important steps in addressing the rheumatology workforce shortage,” Dr. Miloslavsky and Dr. Marston wrote.

Ms. Yonker said all her APPs take various courses that the ACR and other organizations provide for rheumatology-specific, midlevel positions. “We provide as much training as possible for them to feel comfortable in this space. They are set directly with a physician for a long time and then eventually go into their own space.”

In addition to ACR, the Rheumatology Nurses Society and the Association of Women in Rheumatology offer excellent online training resources for APPs, Ms. Yonker said. “Also, the Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation offers an osteoporosis fracture liaison certification which we put APPs through as well,” she added.

Rheumatology practices should also look into an important clinical training grant program from the Rheumatology Research Foundation, Dr. Stamatos advised.

To date, they have “funded almost everyone that applies,” she said. Each grantee receives $25,000 to support training and education involved in onboarding an APP to a rheumatology practice. The money covers attendance at a live rheumatology conference, online educational programs, textbooks, and any society memberships while defraying the cost of training this employee. To increase awareness of the program, the foundation has since expanded the number of available submission dates and the number of grant awardees per year. Currently, the application deadlines for the grants are December 1 and March 1.

For her own health system, Dr. Stamatos has been working on a rheumatology fellowship program for APPs. Through simulation labs, leadership exercises, and other activities, these APPs will learn how to transition from being a new provider to someone who can become part of a practice, she said.

APPs themselves can also get proactive in this learning cycle, Ms. Swafford said. In her view, both APPs and rheumatologists should be conducting didactic lectures and organizing elective rotations with medical students to get them excited about the field. This would establish a good education base that would encourage PAs and NPs to choose rheumatology.

“That’s a huge thing that’s probably missing,” Ms. Swafford said.
 

Buy-in From the Doctor

No recruitment effort is going to work if the rheumatologists in the practice aren’t committed to the model of having an APP, Ms. Yonker said. “Everybody wants to know their purpose in their company and that they’re valued and they’re needed. And so, I think a pitfall would be if your rheumatologist is not sold on the model of expanding the care team. Because this takes work on behalf of the doctor.”

Rheumatologists are very busy, so it’s a hard sell for them to take time out of their busy clinics to train somebody to do a good job taking care of their patients, Ms. Taylor agreed. “I think that we need the physicians that have had success with this and allow them to coach the physicians that are still resistant.”

In his small practice, Dr. Box has encouraged his NP to assist with practice improvements, working with the office manager. These workers are providers and need to be treated as such, he said. “They need to feel like they contribute to the practice more than just grinding through patients.”

Peer support is another successful ingredient for these workers. Ms. Taylor’s NP finds the time to commiserate with her fellow nurse practitioners — other rheumatology nurses who are also learning the ropes. Rheumatologists are smart, and they can be very intimidating, Ms. Taylor said. In their small office, the rheumatologist is her only peer.

“She likes to get out and sort of integrate with other nurse practitioners that are learning too.”
 

When APPs Make a Difference

Practices that take on APPs are reporting positive metrics — mainly, shorter wait times for patients. Ms. Yonker’s physicians have been able to add on one to two new patients a day. Wait times have since dwindled from a 5-month to a 3-month wait with the addition of the NPs. “Three months is still long, but we’re working on getting it to that ideal 6-week wait period, which we’re hoping we can accomplish. So we’re able to get more new patients in for sure,” she said.

Prior to hiring an NP, Ms. Taylor’s practice had to defer acceptances for new patients by at least a year. Now, they’re able to accept about half of all new patient referrals. With the NP on board, “We can get them in within 30 days,” she said.

Sometimes, an APP will go beyond their scope of work to make a difference and better support patients.

Patients with rheumatic and osteopathic conditions are often underdiagnosed in the primary care space. As a result, they are not treated as often as they should be. Seeing a need for specialty care, Ms. Swafford took action.

She currently runs the only bone health clinic in southwest Michigan, coordinating with rheumatologists, NPs, urgent care, hospitalists, and interventional radiologists to attend to these patients more quickly and reduce wait times for care. Specialists will flag things such as nontraumatic hip fractures and vertebral fractures and refer them to Ms. Swafford’s clinic, which is part of Bronson Rheumatology Specialists.

The clinic gets quite a few referrals, and the practice is growing. “Usually, they don’t take as long as a rheumatology referral for a workup, so we can see them a little bit quicker,” usually within 3 weeks, she added.

APPs have an opportunity to make their mark in rheumatology at a time when the profession is experiencing significant gaps in care, Ms. Swafford continued. “Unless we find a way to fill that niche, we’re going to be in a world of trouble in the next 10, 20 years.”

None of the sources reported any disclosures or conflicts of interest.

Men who have smoked or currently smoke are significantly more likely to develop androgenetic alopecia (AGA) than men who have never smoked, according to a new study.

In addition, the odds of developing AGA are higher among those who smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day than among those who smoke less, the study authors found.

“Men who smoke are more likely to develop and experience progression of male pattern hair loss,” lead author Aditya Gupta, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, and director of clinical research at Mediprobe Research Inc., London, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

“Our patients with male pattern baldness need to be educated about the negative effects of smoking, given that this condition can have a profound negative psychological impact on those who suffer from it,” he said.

The study was published online in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.
 

Analyzing Smoking’s Effects

Smoking generally has been accepted as a risk factor for the development and progression of AGA or the most common form of hair loss. The research evidence on this association has been inconsistent, however, the authors wrote.

The investigators conducted a review and meta-analysis of eight observational studies to understand the links between smoking and AGA. Ever-smokers were defined as current and former smokers.

Overall, based on six studies, men who have ever smoked are 1.8 times more likely (P < .05) to develop AGA.

Based on two studies, men who smoke 10 or more cigarettes daily are about twice as likely (P < .05) to develop AGA than those who smoke up to 10 cigarettes per day.

Based on four studies, ever smoking is associated with 1.3 times higher odds of AGA progressing from mild (ie, Norwood-Hamilton stages I-III) to more severe (stages IV-VII) than among those who have never smoked.

Based on two studies, there’s no association between AGA progression and smoking intensity (as defined as smoking up to 20 cigarettes daily vs smoking 20 or more cigarettes per day).

“Though our pooled analysis found no significant association between smoking intensity and severity of male AGA, a positive correlation may exist and be detected through an analysis that is statistically better powered,” said Dr. Gupta.

The investigators noted the limitations of their analysis, such as its reliance on observational studies and its lack of data about nicotine levels, smoking intensity, and smoking cessation among study participants.

Additional studies are needed to better understand the links between smoking and hair loss, said Dr. Gupta, as well as the effects of smoking cessation.

Improving Practice and Research

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Arash Babadjouni, MD, a dermatologist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, said, “Smoking is not only a preventable cause of significant systemic disease but also affects the follicular growth cycle and fiber pigmentation. The prevalence of hair loss and premature hair graying is higher in smokers than nonsmokers.”

Dr. Babadjouni, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the associations between smoking and hair loss and premature hair graying.

“Evidence of this association can be used to clinically promote smoking cessation and emphasize the consequences of smoking on hair,” he said. “Smoking status should be assessed in patients who are presenting to their dermatologist and physicians alike for evaluation of alopecia and premature hair graying.”

The study was conducted without outside funding, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Babadjouni reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men who have smoked or currently smoke are significantly more likely to develop androgenetic alopecia (AGA) than men who have never smoked, according to a new study.

In addition, the odds of developing AGA are higher among those who smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day than among those who smoke less, the study authors found.

“Men who smoke are more likely to develop and experience progression of male pattern hair loss,” lead author Aditya Gupta, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, and director of clinical research at Mediprobe Research Inc., London, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

“Our patients with male pattern baldness need to be educated about the negative effects of smoking, given that this condition can have a profound negative psychological impact on those who suffer from it,” he said.

The study was published online in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.
 

Analyzing Smoking’s Effects

Smoking generally has been accepted as a risk factor for the development and progression of AGA or the most common form of hair loss. The research evidence on this association has been inconsistent, however, the authors wrote.

The investigators conducted a review and meta-analysis of eight observational studies to understand the links between smoking and AGA. Ever-smokers were defined as current and former smokers.

Overall, based on six studies, men who have ever smoked are 1.8 times more likely (P < .05) to develop AGA.

Based on two studies, men who smoke 10 or more cigarettes daily are about twice as likely (P < .05) to develop AGA than those who smoke up to 10 cigarettes per day.

Based on four studies, ever smoking is associated with 1.3 times higher odds of AGA progressing from mild (ie, Norwood-Hamilton stages I-III) to more severe (stages IV-VII) than among those who have never smoked.

Based on two studies, there’s no association between AGA progression and smoking intensity (as defined as smoking up to 20 cigarettes daily vs smoking 20 or more cigarettes per day).

“Though our pooled analysis found no significant association between smoking intensity and severity of male AGA, a positive correlation may exist and be detected through an analysis that is statistically better powered,” said Dr. Gupta.

The investigators noted the limitations of their analysis, such as its reliance on observational studies and its lack of data about nicotine levels, smoking intensity, and smoking cessation among study participants.

Additional studies are needed to better understand the links between smoking and hair loss, said Dr. Gupta, as well as the effects of smoking cessation.

Improving Practice and Research

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Arash Babadjouni, MD, a dermatologist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, said, “Smoking is not only a preventable cause of significant systemic disease but also affects the follicular growth cycle and fiber pigmentation. The prevalence of hair loss and premature hair graying is higher in smokers than nonsmokers.”

Dr. Babadjouni, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the associations between smoking and hair loss and premature hair graying.

“Evidence of this association can be used to clinically promote smoking cessation and emphasize the consequences of smoking on hair,” he said. “Smoking status should be assessed in patients who are presenting to their dermatologist and physicians alike for evaluation of alopecia and premature hair graying.”

The study was conducted without outside funding, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Babadjouni reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men who have smoked or currently smoke are significantly more likely to develop androgenetic alopecia (AGA) than men who have never smoked, according to a new study.

In addition, the odds of developing AGA are higher among those who smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day than among those who smoke less, the study authors found.

“Men who smoke are more likely to develop and experience progression of male pattern hair loss,” lead author Aditya Gupta, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, and director of clinical research at Mediprobe Research Inc., London, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

“Our patients with male pattern baldness need to be educated about the negative effects of smoking, given that this condition can have a profound negative psychological impact on those who suffer from it,” he said.

The study was published online in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.
 

Analyzing Smoking’s Effects

Smoking generally has been accepted as a risk factor for the development and progression of AGA or the most common form of hair loss. The research evidence on this association has been inconsistent, however, the authors wrote.

The investigators conducted a review and meta-analysis of eight observational studies to understand the links between smoking and AGA. Ever-smokers were defined as current and former smokers.

Overall, based on six studies, men who have ever smoked are 1.8 times more likely (P < .05) to develop AGA.

Based on two studies, men who smoke 10 or more cigarettes daily are about twice as likely (P < .05) to develop AGA than those who smoke up to 10 cigarettes per day.

Based on four studies, ever smoking is associated with 1.3 times higher odds of AGA progressing from mild (ie, Norwood-Hamilton stages I-III) to more severe (stages IV-VII) than among those who have never smoked.

Based on two studies, there’s no association between AGA progression and smoking intensity (as defined as smoking up to 20 cigarettes daily vs smoking 20 or more cigarettes per day).

“Though our pooled analysis found no significant association between smoking intensity and severity of male AGA, a positive correlation may exist and be detected through an analysis that is statistically better powered,” said Dr. Gupta.

The investigators noted the limitations of their analysis, such as its reliance on observational studies and its lack of data about nicotine levels, smoking intensity, and smoking cessation among study participants.

Additional studies are needed to better understand the links between smoking and hair loss, said Dr. Gupta, as well as the effects of smoking cessation.

Improving Practice and Research

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Arash Babadjouni, MD, a dermatologist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, said, “Smoking is not only a preventable cause of significant systemic disease but also affects the follicular growth cycle and fiber pigmentation. The prevalence of hair loss and premature hair graying is higher in smokers than nonsmokers.”

Dr. Babadjouni, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the associations between smoking and hair loss and premature hair graying.

“Evidence of this association can be used to clinically promote smoking cessation and emphasize the consequences of smoking on hair,” he said. “Smoking status should be assessed in patients who are presenting to their dermatologist and physicians alike for evaluation of alopecia and premature hair graying.”

The study was conducted without outside funding, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Babadjouni reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.

One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.

Kaiser Permanente

With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.

Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?

If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.

For my scaly patient, we know psoriasis is common and so it’s likely he has it. The trouble is what “probably” means to me might mean something different to him. If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.

I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.

Seemed like a good bet to me.

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 X. Write to him at [email protected].

“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.

One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.

Kaiser Permanente

With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.

Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?

If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.

For my scaly patient, we know psoriasis is common and so it’s likely he has it. The trouble is what “probably” means to me might mean something different to him. If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.

I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.

Seemed like a good bet to me.

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 X. Write to him at [email protected].

“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.

One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.

Kaiser Permanente

With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.

Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?

If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.

For my scaly patient, we know psoriasis is common and so it’s likely he has it. The trouble is what “probably” means to me might mean something different to him. If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.

I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.

Seemed like a good bet to me.

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 X. Write to him at [email protected].

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

As the saying goes, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” That is particularly true when it comes to the affordability of drugs for our patients even after the launch of so many Humira biosimilars. And we still have the “musical chairs” game of formulary construction — when the music stops, who knows whether your patient’s drug found a chair to sit on. There seems to be only a few chairs available for the many adalimumab biosimilars playing the game.

Nothing has changed since my testimony before the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee in July 2016 during the approval hearing of the first Humira biosimilar. Below is a quote from that meeting where I was speaking predominantly about the pharmacy side of drugs.

“I’d like to highlight the term ‘access’ because none of us are really naive enough to believe that just approving a biosimilar gives a patient true, hands-on access to the medication, because even if the biosimilar is offered at a 30% discount, I don’t have any patients that can afford it. This means that access is ultimately controlled by third-party payers.”

My prediction, that approving and launching biosimilars with lower prices would not ensure patient access to the drug unless it is paid for by insurance, is now our reality. Today, a drug with an 85% discount on the price of Humira is still unattainable for patients without a “payer.”
 

Competition and Lower Prices

Lawmakers and some in the media cry for more competition to lower prices. This is the main reason that there has been such a push to get biosimilars to the market as quickly as possible. It is abundantly clear that competition to get on the formulary is fierce. Placement of a medication on a formulary can make or break a manufacturer’s ability to get a return on the R&D and make a profit on that medication. For a small biotech manufacturer, it can be the difference between “life and death” of the company.

Does anyone remember when the first interchangeable biosimilar for the reference insulin glargine product Lantus (insulin glargine-yfgn; Semglee) came to market in 2021? Janet Woodcock, MD, then acting FDA commissioner, called it a “momentous day” and further said, “Today’s approval of the first interchangeable biosimilar product furthers FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products and ultimately empowers patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.” There was a high-priced interchangeable biosimilar and an identical unbranded low-priced interchangeable biosimilar, and the only one that could get formulary placement was the high-priced drug.

Patients pay their cost share on the list price of the drug, and because most pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBMs’) formularies cover only the high-priced biosimilar, patients never share in the savings. So much for the “competitive marketplace” creating lower costs for patients. This is just one of hundreds of examples in which lower-priced drugs are excluded from the formulary. It is unfortunate that the bidding process from manufacturers to PBMs to “win” preferred formulary placement is like an art auction, where the highest bidder wins.
 

Biosimilars and Formulary Construction

For those of us who have been looking into PBMs for many years, it is no surprise that PBMs’ formulary construction has become a profit center for them. Now, with so many adalimumab biosimilars having entered the market, it has become the Wild West where only those with the most money to fork over to the PBMs get preferred placement. Unfortunately, many of the choices that make money for the PBM cost employers and patients more.

How did we get here? In the 1980s and 90s, the price of medications began to increase to the point that many were not affordable without insurance. And who better to construct the list of drugs that would be covered by insurance (formulary) than the PBMs who were already adjudicating the claims for these drugs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) realized the power inherent in constructing this list of medications known as the formulary. So when the manufacturer Merck acquired the PBM Medco in the mid-1990s, the FTC stepped in. The FTC surmised that making the drugs and deciding which ones will be paid for created a “conflict of interest” with anticompetitive ramifications.

So, in 1998, William J. Baer, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said, “Our investigation into the PBM industry has revealed that Merck’s acquisition of Medco has reduced competition in the market for pharmaceutical products … We have found that Medco has given favorable treatment to Merck drugs. As a result, in some cases, consumers have been denied access to the drugs of competing manufacturers. In addition, the merger has made it possible for Medco to share with Merck sensitive pricing information it gets from Merck’s competitors, which could foster collusion among drug manufacturers.” Wow!

These anticompetitive behaviors and conflicts of interest resulting from the Medco acquisition led the FTC to propose a consent agreement.

The agreement would require Merck-Medco to maintain an “open formulary” — one that includes drugs selected and approved by an independent Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee regardless of the manufacturer. Medco would have to accept rebates and other price concessions and reflect these in the ranking of the drugs on the formulary. Merck would have to make known the availability of the open formulary to any drug maker with an agreement with Medco.

Let’s hope the FTC of 2024 remembers the stance of the FTC in the 1990s regarding anticompetitive behavior involved in formulary construction.
 

Conflicts of Interest

But today it is apparent that crafting formularies that pay only for the drugs that make the most money for the PBM is not a conflict of interest. In its policy manual, Cigna directly tells employers and employees that they are collecting and keeping rebates and fees on medical pharmaceuticals, and they are not for the benefit of the employer or the plan.

And now, in August 2023, CVS launched Cordavis, a subsidiary wholly owned by CVS. Cordavis/CVS has partnered with Sandoz, which makes Hyrimoz, an adalimumab biosimilar. There is a high-priced version that is discounted 5% from Humira, a lower-cost unbranded version that is discounted 80% off the list price of Humira, and a co-branded CVS/Sandoz version of Hyrimoz that is lower priced as well.

It isn’t a surprise that CVS’ Standard and Advanced Commercial and Chart formularies are offering only Sandoz adalimumab biosimilar products. While these formularies have excluded Humira, CVS has entered into an agreement with AbbVie to allow Humira on a number of their other formularies. It can be very confusing.

As stated earlier, in the 1990s, the FTC frowned upon manufacturers owning PBMs and allowing them to construct their own formularies. Here we have CVS Health, mothership for the PBM CVS Caremark, owning a company that will be co-producing biosimilars with other manufacturers and then determining which biosimilars are on their formularies. The FTC knew back then that the tendency would be to offer only their own drugs for coverage, thus reducing competition. This is exactly what the CVS-Cordavis-Sandoz partnership has done for their Standard and Advanced Commercial and Chart formularies. It is perhaps anti-competitive but certainly profitable.

Perhaps the FTC should require the same consent agreement that was given to Merck in 1998. CVS Caremark would then have to open their formularies to all competitors of their co-branded, co-produced Sandoz biosimilar.
 

Summary

It is the same old adage, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” PBMs are still constructing formularies with biosimilars based on their profitability, with huge differences between gross and net cost. Patients still pay their cost share on the list (gross) price. With the CVS-Cordavis-Sandoz partnership, more vertical integration has led to yet another profit river. Self-funded employers are still getting the wool pulled over their eyes by the big three PBMs who threaten to take away rebates if they don’t choose the preferred formularies. The employers don’t realize that sometimes it is less expensive to choose the lower-priced drugs with no rebates, and that holds true for biosimilars as well.

Let’s hope that the FTC investigates the situation of a PBM partnering with a manufacturer and then choosing only that manufacturer’s drugs for many of their formularies.

We need to continue our advocacy for our patients because the medication that has kept them stable for so long may find itself without a chair the next time the music stops.
 

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].

As the saying goes, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” That is particularly true when it comes to the affordability of drugs for our patients even after the launch of so many Humira biosimilars. And we still have the “musical chairs” game of formulary construction — when the music stops, who knows whether your patient’s drug found a chair to sit on. There seems to be only a few chairs available for the many adalimumab biosimilars playing the game.

Nothing has changed since my testimony before the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee in July 2016 during the approval hearing of the first Humira biosimilar. Below is a quote from that meeting where I was speaking predominantly about the pharmacy side of drugs.

“I’d like to highlight the term ‘access’ because none of us are really naive enough to believe that just approving a biosimilar gives a patient true, hands-on access to the medication, because even if the biosimilar is offered at a 30% discount, I don’t have any patients that can afford it. This means that access is ultimately controlled by third-party payers.”

My prediction, that approving and launching biosimilars with lower prices would not ensure patient access to the drug unless it is paid for by insurance, is now our reality. Today, a drug with an 85% discount on the price of Humira is still unattainable for patients without a “payer.”
 

Competition and Lower Prices

Lawmakers and some in the media cry for more competition to lower prices. This is the main reason that there has been such a push to get biosimilars to the market as quickly as possible. It is abundantly clear that competition to get on the formulary is fierce. Placement of a medication on a formulary can make or break a manufacturer’s ability to get a return on the R&D and make a profit on that medication. For a small biotech manufacturer, it can be the difference between “life and death” of the company.

Does anyone remember when the first interchangeable biosimilar for the reference insulin glargine product Lantus (insulin glargine-yfgn; Semglee) came to market in 2021? Janet Woodcock, MD, then acting FDA commissioner, called it a “momentous day” and further said, “Today’s approval of the first interchangeable biosimilar product furthers FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products and ultimately empowers patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.” There was a high-priced interchangeable biosimilar and an identical unbranded low-priced interchangeable biosimilar, and the only one that could get formulary placement was the high-priced drug.

Patients pay their cost share on the list price of the drug, and because most pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBMs’) formularies cover only the high-priced biosimilar, patients never share in the savings. So much for the “competitive marketplace” creating lower costs for patients. This is just one of hundreds of examples in which lower-priced drugs are excluded from the formulary. It is unfortunate that the bidding process from manufacturers to PBMs to “win” preferred formulary placement is like an art auction, where the highest bidder wins.
 

Biosimilars and Formulary Construction

For those of us who have been looking into PBMs for many years, it is no surprise that PBMs’ formulary construction has become a profit center for them. Now, with so many adalimumab biosimilars having entered the market, it has become the Wild West where only those with the most money to fork over to the PBMs get preferred placement. Unfortunately, many of the choices that make money for the PBM cost employers and patients more.

How did we get here? In the 1980s and 90s, the price of medications began to increase to the point that many were not affordable without insurance. And who better to construct the list of drugs that would be covered by insurance (formulary) than the PBMs who were already adjudicating the claims for these drugs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) realized the power inherent in constructing this list of medications known as the formulary. So when the manufacturer Merck acquired the PBM Medco in the mid-1990s, the FTC stepped in. The FTC surmised that making the drugs and deciding which ones will be paid for created a “conflict of interest” with anticompetitive ramifications.

So, in 1998, William J. Baer, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said, “Our investigation into the PBM industry has revealed that Merck’s acquisition of Medco has reduced competition in the market for pharmaceutical products … We have found that Medco has given favorable treatment to Merck drugs. As a result, in some cases, consumers have been denied access to the drugs of competing manufacturers. In addition, the merger has made it possible for Medco to share with Merck sensitive pricing information it gets from Merck’s competitors, which could foster collusion among drug manufacturers.” Wow!

These anticompetitive behaviors and conflicts of interest resulting from the Medco acquisition led the FTC to propose a consent agreement.

The agreement would require Merck-Medco to maintain an “open formulary” — one that includes drugs selected and approved by an independent Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee regardless of the manufacturer. Medco would have to accept rebates and other price concessions and reflect these in the ranking of the drugs on the formulary. Merck would have to make known the availability of the open formulary to any drug maker with an agreement with Medco.

Let’s hope the FTC of 2024 remembers the stance of the FTC in the 1990s regarding anticompetitive behavior involved in formulary construction.
 

Conflicts of Interest

But today it is apparent that crafting formularies that pay only for the drugs that make the most money for the PBM is not a conflict of interest. In its policy manual, Cigna directly tells employers and employees that they are collecting and keeping rebates and fees on medical pharmaceuticals, and they are not for the benefit of the employer or the plan.

And now, in August 2023, CVS launched Cordavis, a subsidiary wholly owned by CVS. Cordavis/CVS has partnered with Sandoz, which makes Hyrimoz, an adalimumab biosimilar. There is a high-priced version that is discounted 5% from Humira, a lower-cost unbranded version that is discounted 80% off the list price of Humira, and a co-branded CVS/Sandoz version of Hyrimoz that is lower priced as well.

It isn’t a surprise that CVS’ Standard and Advanced Commercial and Chart formularies are offering only Sandoz adalimumab biosimilar products. While these formularies have excluded Humira, CVS has entered into an agreement with AbbVie to allow Humira on a number of their other formularies. It can be very confusing.

As stated earlier, in the 1990s, the FTC frowned upon manufacturers owning PBMs and allowing them to construct their own formularies. Here we have CVS Health, mothership for the PBM CVS Caremark, owning a company that will be co-producing biosimilars with other manufacturers and then determining which biosimilars are on their formularies. The FTC knew back then that the tendency would be to offer only their own drugs for coverage, thus reducing competition. This is exactly what the CVS-Cordavis-Sandoz partnership has done for their Standard and Advanced Commercial and Chart formularies. It is perhaps anti-competitive but certainly profitable.

Perhaps the FTC should require the same consent agreement that was given to Merck in 1998. CVS Caremark would then have to open their formularies to all competitors of their co-branded, co-produced Sandoz biosimilar.
 

Summary

It is the same old adage, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” PBMs are still constructing formularies with biosimilars based on their profitability, with huge differences between gross and net cost. Patients still pay their cost share on the list (gross) price. With the CVS-Cordavis-Sandoz partnership, more vertical integration has led to yet another profit river. Self-funded employers are still getting the wool pulled over their eyes by the big three PBMs who threaten to take away rebates if they don’t choose the preferred formularies. The employers don’t realize that sometimes it is less expensive to choose the lower-priced drugs with no rebates, and that holds true for biosimilars as well.

Let’s hope that the FTC investigates the situation of a PBM partnering with a manufacturer and then choosing only that manufacturer’s drugs for many of their formularies.

We need to continue our advocacy for our patients because the medication that has kept them stable for so long may find itself without a chair the next time the music stops.
 

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].

As the saying goes, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” That is particularly true when it comes to the affordability of drugs for our patients even after the launch of so many Humira biosimilars. And we still have the “musical chairs” game of formulary construction — when the music stops, who knows whether your patient’s drug found a chair to sit on. There seems to be only a few chairs available for the many adalimumab biosimilars playing the game.

Nothing has changed since my testimony before the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee in July 2016 during the approval hearing of the first Humira biosimilar. Below is a quote from that meeting where I was speaking predominantly about the pharmacy side of drugs.

“I’d like to highlight the term ‘access’ because none of us are really naive enough to believe that just approving a biosimilar gives a patient true, hands-on access to the medication, because even if the biosimilar is offered at a 30% discount, I don’t have any patients that can afford it. This means that access is ultimately controlled by third-party payers.”

My prediction, that approving and launching biosimilars with lower prices would not ensure patient access to the drug unless it is paid for by insurance, is now our reality. Today, a drug with an 85% discount on the price of Humira is still unattainable for patients without a “payer.”
 

Competition and Lower Prices

Lawmakers and some in the media cry for more competition to lower prices. This is the main reason that there has been such a push to get biosimilars to the market as quickly as possible. It is abundantly clear that competition to get on the formulary is fierce. Placement of a medication on a formulary can make or break a manufacturer’s ability to get a return on the R&D and make a profit on that medication. For a small biotech manufacturer, it can be the difference between “life and death” of the company.

Does anyone remember when the first interchangeable biosimilar for the reference insulin glargine product Lantus (insulin glargine-yfgn; Semglee) came to market in 2021? Janet Woodcock, MD, then acting FDA commissioner, called it a “momentous day” and further said, “Today’s approval of the first interchangeable biosimilar product furthers FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products and ultimately empowers patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.” There was a high-priced interchangeable biosimilar and an identical unbranded low-priced interchangeable biosimilar, and the only one that could get formulary placement was the high-priced drug.

Patients pay their cost share on the list price of the drug, and because most pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBMs’) formularies cover only the high-priced biosimilar, patients never share in the savings. So much for the “competitive marketplace” creating lower costs for patients. This is just one of hundreds of examples in which lower-priced drugs are excluded from the formulary. It is unfortunate that the bidding process from manufacturers to PBMs to “win” preferred formulary placement is like an art auction, where the highest bidder wins.
 

Biosimilars and Formulary Construction

For those of us who have been looking into PBMs for many years, it is no surprise that PBMs’ formulary construction has become a profit center for them. Now, with so many adalimumab biosimilars having entered the market, it has become the Wild West where only those with the most money to fork over to the PBMs get preferred placement. Unfortunately, many of the choices that make money for the PBM cost employers and patients more.

How did we get here? In the 1980s and 90s, the price of medications began to increase to the point that many were not affordable without insurance. And who better to construct the list of drugs that would be covered by insurance (formulary) than the PBMs who were already adjudicating the claims for these drugs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) realized the power inherent in constructing this list of medications known as the formulary. So when the manufacturer Merck acquired the PBM Medco in the mid-1990s, the FTC stepped in. The FTC surmised that making the drugs and deciding which ones will be paid for created a “conflict of interest” with anticompetitive ramifications.

So, in 1998, William J. Baer, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said, “Our investigation into the PBM industry has revealed that Merck’s acquisition of Medco has reduced competition in the market for pharmaceutical products … We have found that Medco has given favorable treatment to Merck drugs. As a result, in some cases, consumers have been denied access to the drugs of competing manufacturers. In addition, the merger has made it possible for Medco to share with Merck sensitive pricing information it gets from Merck’s competitors, which could foster collusion among drug manufacturers.” Wow!

These anticompetitive behaviors and conflicts of interest resulting from the Medco acquisition led the FTC to propose a consent agreement.

The agreement would require Merck-Medco to maintain an “open formulary” — one that includes drugs selected and approved by an independent Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee regardless of the manufacturer. Medco would have to accept rebates and other price concessions and reflect these in the ranking of the drugs on the formulary. Merck would have to make known the availability of the open formulary to any drug maker with an agreement with Medco.

Let’s hope the FTC of 2024 remembers the stance of the FTC in the 1990s regarding anticompetitive behavior involved in formulary construction.
 

Conflicts of Interest

But today it is apparent that crafting formularies that pay only for the drugs that make the most money for the PBM is not a conflict of interest. In its policy manual, Cigna directly tells employers and employees that they are collecting and keeping rebates and fees on medical pharmaceuticals, and they are not for the benefit of the employer or the plan.

And now, in August 2023, CVS launched Cordavis, a subsidiary wholly owned by CVS. Cordavis/CVS has partnered with Sandoz, which makes Hyrimoz, an adalimumab biosimilar. There is a high-priced version that is discounted 5% from Humira, a lower-cost unbranded version that is discounted 80% off the list price of Humira, and a co-branded CVS/Sandoz version of Hyrimoz that is lower priced as well.

It isn’t a surprise that CVS’ Standard and Advanced Commercial and Chart formularies are offering only Sandoz adalimumab biosimilar products. While these formularies have excluded Humira, CVS has entered into an agreement with AbbVie to allow Humira on a number of their other formularies. It can be very confusing.

As stated earlier, in the 1990s, the FTC frowned upon manufacturers owning PBMs and allowing them to construct their own formularies. Here we have CVS Health, mothership for the PBM CVS Caremark, owning a company that will be co-producing biosimilars with other manufacturers and then determining which biosimilars are on their formularies. The FTC knew back then that the tendency would be to offer only their own drugs for coverage, thus reducing competition. This is exactly what the CVS-Cordavis-Sandoz partnership has done for their Standard and Advanced Commercial and Chart formularies. It is perhaps anti-competitive but certainly profitable.

Perhaps the FTC should require the same consent agreement that was given to Merck in 1998. CVS Caremark would then have to open their formularies to all competitors of their co-branded, co-produced Sandoz biosimilar.
 

Summary

It is the same old adage, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” PBMs are still constructing formularies with biosimilars based on their profitability, with huge differences between gross and net cost. Patients still pay their cost share on the list (gross) price. With the CVS-Cordavis-Sandoz partnership, more vertical integration has led to yet another profit river. Self-funded employers are still getting the wool pulled over their eyes by the big three PBMs who threaten to take away rebates if they don’t choose the preferred formularies. The employers don’t realize that sometimes it is less expensive to choose the lower-priced drugs with no rebates, and that holds true for biosimilars as well.

Let’s hope that the FTC investigates the situation of a PBM partnering with a manufacturer and then choosing only that manufacturer’s drugs for many of their formularies.

We need to continue our advocacy for our patients because the medication that has kept them stable for so long may find itself without a chair the next time the music stops.
 

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].

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and fibromyalgia (FM) have overlapping neurologic symptoms — particularly profound fatigue. The similarity between these two conditions has led to the question of whether they are indeed distinct central nervous system (CNS) entities, or whether they exist along a spectrum and are actually two different manifestations of the same disease process.

A new study utilized a novel methodology — unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics — to investigate this question by analyzing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in a group of patients with ME/CFS and another group of patients diagnosed with both ME/CFS and FM.

Close to 2,100 proteins were identified, of which nearly 1,800 were common to both conditions.

“ME/CFS and fibromyalgia do not appear to be distinct entities, with respect to their cerebrospinal fluid proteins,” lead author Steven Schutzer, MD, professor of medicine, Rutgers New Jersey School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“Work is underway to solve the multiple mysteries of ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, and other neurologic-associated diseases,” he continued. “We have further affirmed that we have a precise objective discovery tool in our hands. Collectively studying multiple diseases brings clarity to each individual disease.”

The study was published in the December 2023 issue of Annals of Medicine.
 

Cutting-Edge Technology

“ME/CFS is characterized by disabling fatigue, and FM is an illness characterized by body-wide pain,” Dr. Schutzer said. These “medically unexplained” illnesses often coexist by current definitions, and the overlap between them has suggested that they may be part of the “same illness spectrum.”

But co-investigator Benjamin Natelson, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Pain and Fatigue Study Center, Mount Sinai, New York, and others found in previous research that there are distinct differences between the conditions, raising the possibility that there may be different pathophysiological processes.

“The physicians and scientists on our team have had longstanding interest in studying neurologic diseases with cutting-edge tools such as mass spectrometry applied to CSF,” Dr. Schutzer said. “We have had success using this message to distinguish diseases such as ME/CFS from post-treatment Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, and healthy normal people.”

Dr. Schutzer explained that Dr. Natelson had acquired CSF samples from “well-characterized [ME/CFS] patients and controls.”

Since the cause of ME/CFS is “unknown,” it seemed “ripe to investigate it further with the discovery tool of mass spectrometry” by harnessing the “most advanced equipment in the country at the pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is part of the US Department of Energy.”

Dr. Schutzer noted that it was the “merger of different clinical and laboratory expertise” that enabled them to address whether ME/CFS and FM are two distinct disease processes.

The choice of analyzing CSF is that it’s the fluid closest to the brain, he added. “A lot of people have studied ME/CFS peripherally because they don’t have access to spinal fluid or it’s easier to look peripherally in the blood, but that doesn’t mean that the blood is where the real ‘action’ is occurring.”

The researchers compared the CSF of 15 patients with ME/CFS only to 15 patients with ME/CFS+FM using mass spectrometry-based proteomics, which they had employed in previous research to see whether ME/CFS was distinct from persistent neurologic Lyme disease syndrome.

This technology has become the “method of choice and discovery tool to rapidly uncover protein biomarkers that can distinguish one disease from another,” the authors stated.

In particular, in unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics, the researchers do not have to know in advance what’s in a sample before studying it, Dr. Schutzer explained.
 

Shared Pathophysiology?

Both groups of patients were of similar age (41.3 ± 9.4 years and 40.1 ± 11.0 years, respectively), with no differences in gender or rates of current comorbid psychiatric diagnoses between the groups.

The researchers quantified a total of 2,083 proteins, including 1,789 that were specifically quantified in all of the CSF samples, regardless of the presence or absence of FM.

Several analyses (including an ANOVA analysis with adjusted P values, a Random Forest machine learning approach that looked at relative protein abundance changes between those with ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM, and unsupervised hierarchical clustering analyses) did not find distinguishing differences between the groups.

“The sum of these results does not support the hypothesis that ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM are distinct entities, as currently defined,” the authors stated.

They noted that both conditions are “medically unexplained,” with core symptoms of pain, fatigue, sleep problems, and cognitive difficulty. The fact that these two syndromes coexist so often has led to the assumption that the “similarities between them outweigh the differences,” they wrote.

They pointed to some differences between the conditions, including an increase in substance P in the CSF of FM patients, but not in ME/CFS patients reported by others. There are also some immunological, physiological and genetic differences.

But if the conclusion that the two illnesses may share a similar pathophysiological basis is supported by other research that includes FM-only patients as comparators to those with ME/CFS, “this would support the notion that the two illnesses fall along a common illness spectrum and may be approached as a single entity — with implications for both diagnosis and the development of new treatment approaches,” they concluded.
 

‘Noncontributory’ Findings

Commenting on the research, Robert G. Lahita, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Autoimmune and Rheumatic Diseases, St. Joseph Health, Wayne, New Jersey, stated that he does not regard these diseases as neurologic but rather as rheumatologic.

“Most neurologists don’t see these diseases, but as a rheumatologist, I see them every day,” said Dr. Lahita, professor of medicine at Hackensack (New Jersey) Meridian School of Medicine and a clinical professor of medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, New Brunswick. “ME/CFS isn’t as common in my practice, but we do deal with many post-COVID patients who are afflicted mostly with ME/CFS.”

He noted that an important reason for fatigue in FM is that patients generally don’t sleep, or their sleep is disrupted. This is different from the cause of fatigue in ME/CFS.

In addition, the small sample size and the lack of difference between males and females were both limitations of the current study, said Dr. Lahita, who was not involved in this research. “We know that FM disproportionately affects women — in my practice, for example, over 95% of the patients with FM are female — while ME/CFS affects both genders similarly.”

Using proteomics as a biomarker was also problematic, according to Dr. Lahita. “It would have been more valuable to investigate differences in cytokines, for example,” he suggested.

Ultimately, Dr. Lahita thinks that the study is “non-contributory to the field and, as complex as the analysis was, it does nothing to shed differentiate the two conditions or explain the syndromes themselves.”

He added that it would have been more valuable to compare ME/CFS not only to ME/CFS plus FM but also with FM without ME/CFS and to healthy controls, and perhaps to a group with an autoimmune condition, such as lupus or Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

Dr. Schutzer acknowledged that a limitation of the current study is that his team was unable analyze the CSF of patients with only FM. He and his colleagues “combed the world’s labs” for existing CSF samples of patients with FM alone but were unable to obtain any. “We see this study as a ‘stepping stone’ and hope that future studies will include patients with FM who are willing to donate CSF samples that we can use for comparison,” he said.

The authors received support from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Schutzer, coauthors, and Dr. Lahita reported no relevant financial relationships.

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and fibromyalgia (FM) have overlapping neurologic symptoms — particularly profound fatigue. The similarity between these two conditions has led to the question of whether they are indeed distinct central nervous system (CNS) entities, or whether they exist along a spectrum and are actually two different manifestations of the same disease process.

A new study utilized a novel methodology — unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics — to investigate this question by analyzing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in a group of patients with ME/CFS and another group of patients diagnosed with both ME/CFS and FM.

Close to 2,100 proteins were identified, of which nearly 1,800 were common to both conditions.

“ME/CFS and fibromyalgia do not appear to be distinct entities, with respect to their cerebrospinal fluid proteins,” lead author Steven Schutzer, MD, professor of medicine, Rutgers New Jersey School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“Work is underway to solve the multiple mysteries of ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, and other neurologic-associated diseases,” he continued. “We have further affirmed that we have a precise objective discovery tool in our hands. Collectively studying multiple diseases brings clarity to each individual disease.”

The study was published in the December 2023 issue of Annals of Medicine.
 

Cutting-Edge Technology

“ME/CFS is characterized by disabling fatigue, and FM is an illness characterized by body-wide pain,” Dr. Schutzer said. These “medically unexplained” illnesses often coexist by current definitions, and the overlap between them has suggested that they may be part of the “same illness spectrum.”

But co-investigator Benjamin Natelson, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Pain and Fatigue Study Center, Mount Sinai, New York, and others found in previous research that there are distinct differences between the conditions, raising the possibility that there may be different pathophysiological processes.

“The physicians and scientists on our team have had longstanding interest in studying neurologic diseases with cutting-edge tools such as mass spectrometry applied to CSF,” Dr. Schutzer said. “We have had success using this message to distinguish diseases such as ME/CFS from post-treatment Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, and healthy normal people.”

Dr. Schutzer explained that Dr. Natelson had acquired CSF samples from “well-characterized [ME/CFS] patients and controls.”

Since the cause of ME/CFS is “unknown,” it seemed “ripe to investigate it further with the discovery tool of mass spectrometry” by harnessing the “most advanced equipment in the country at the pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is part of the US Department of Energy.”

Dr. Schutzer noted that it was the “merger of different clinical and laboratory expertise” that enabled them to address whether ME/CFS and FM are two distinct disease processes.

The choice of analyzing CSF is that it’s the fluid closest to the brain, he added. “A lot of people have studied ME/CFS peripherally because they don’t have access to spinal fluid or it’s easier to look peripherally in the blood, but that doesn’t mean that the blood is where the real ‘action’ is occurring.”

The researchers compared the CSF of 15 patients with ME/CFS only to 15 patients with ME/CFS+FM using mass spectrometry-based proteomics, which they had employed in previous research to see whether ME/CFS was distinct from persistent neurologic Lyme disease syndrome.

This technology has become the “method of choice and discovery tool to rapidly uncover protein biomarkers that can distinguish one disease from another,” the authors stated.

In particular, in unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics, the researchers do not have to know in advance what’s in a sample before studying it, Dr. Schutzer explained.
 

Shared Pathophysiology?

Both groups of patients were of similar age (41.3 ± 9.4 years and 40.1 ± 11.0 years, respectively), with no differences in gender or rates of current comorbid psychiatric diagnoses between the groups.

The researchers quantified a total of 2,083 proteins, including 1,789 that were specifically quantified in all of the CSF samples, regardless of the presence or absence of FM.

Several analyses (including an ANOVA analysis with adjusted P values, a Random Forest machine learning approach that looked at relative protein abundance changes between those with ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM, and unsupervised hierarchical clustering analyses) did not find distinguishing differences between the groups.

“The sum of these results does not support the hypothesis that ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM are distinct entities, as currently defined,” the authors stated.

They noted that both conditions are “medically unexplained,” with core symptoms of pain, fatigue, sleep problems, and cognitive difficulty. The fact that these two syndromes coexist so often has led to the assumption that the “similarities between them outweigh the differences,” they wrote.

They pointed to some differences between the conditions, including an increase in substance P in the CSF of FM patients, but not in ME/CFS patients reported by others. There are also some immunological, physiological and genetic differences.

But if the conclusion that the two illnesses may share a similar pathophysiological basis is supported by other research that includes FM-only patients as comparators to those with ME/CFS, “this would support the notion that the two illnesses fall along a common illness spectrum and may be approached as a single entity — with implications for both diagnosis and the development of new treatment approaches,” they concluded.
 

‘Noncontributory’ Findings

Commenting on the research, Robert G. Lahita, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Autoimmune and Rheumatic Diseases, St. Joseph Health, Wayne, New Jersey, stated that he does not regard these diseases as neurologic but rather as rheumatologic.

“Most neurologists don’t see these diseases, but as a rheumatologist, I see them every day,” said Dr. Lahita, professor of medicine at Hackensack (New Jersey) Meridian School of Medicine and a clinical professor of medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, New Brunswick. “ME/CFS isn’t as common in my practice, but we do deal with many post-COVID patients who are afflicted mostly with ME/CFS.”

He noted that an important reason for fatigue in FM is that patients generally don’t sleep, or their sleep is disrupted. This is different from the cause of fatigue in ME/CFS.

In addition, the small sample size and the lack of difference between males and females were both limitations of the current study, said Dr. Lahita, who was not involved in this research. “We know that FM disproportionately affects women — in my practice, for example, over 95% of the patients with FM are female — while ME/CFS affects both genders similarly.”

Using proteomics as a biomarker was also problematic, according to Dr. Lahita. “It would have been more valuable to investigate differences in cytokines, for example,” he suggested.

Ultimately, Dr. Lahita thinks that the study is “non-contributory to the field and, as complex as the analysis was, it does nothing to shed differentiate the two conditions or explain the syndromes themselves.”

He added that it would have been more valuable to compare ME/CFS not only to ME/CFS plus FM but also with FM without ME/CFS and to healthy controls, and perhaps to a group with an autoimmune condition, such as lupus or Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

Dr. Schutzer acknowledged that a limitation of the current study is that his team was unable analyze the CSF of patients with only FM. He and his colleagues “combed the world’s labs” for existing CSF samples of patients with FM alone but were unable to obtain any. “We see this study as a ‘stepping stone’ and hope that future studies will include patients with FM who are willing to donate CSF samples that we can use for comparison,” he said.

The authors received support from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Schutzer, coauthors, and Dr. Lahita reported no relevant financial relationships.