Feature

Off-label use of ketamine, the anesthetic-turned-potential treatment for resistant depression, is soaring in the United States and has many experts in the psychiatric community concerned.

The number of ketamine clinics has risen dramatically, with little to no oversight. Prescriptions are being written by providers who lack training in safe ketamine use and online startups are selling the drug for at-home use, taking advantage of a temporary federal regulation that makes it easier to prescribe controlled substances without an in-person patient assessment.

All of this comes at a time when recreational use of ketamine, known on the street as “Special K,” is rising, and reports to poison control centers and drug seizures by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) are climbing.

In a scenario where enthusiasm for the drug is larger than the body of evidence supporting its clinical use, support is growing for the creation of a ketamine registry to collect data on dosage, treatment frequency, adverse events, and long-term outcomes in patients receiving the therapy for depression and other mental health conditions.

“In the past, there was this question of whether a registry was even needed,” said Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who has pushed for a registry for more than 5 years.

“Now, not only are people being treated with this in large numbers, but it’s also started to push the envelope with at-home dosing,” Dr. Sanacora said in an interview. “It’s come to the point that everybody agrees we do need some way to track it.”
 

An idea whose time has come

Interest in ketamine’s antidepressant effects has grown since 2000, when a small study suggested the drug rapidly improved depressive symptoms. Research now suggests ketamine reduces symptoms in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

Studies linking ketamine to relief of depressive symptoms are small and mostly retrospective, and none has offered longitudinal information on long-term outcomes, including side effects and the risk of addiction.

Still, clinicians desperate to help the one-third of patients with major depression who fail to respond to first-line treatments often prescribe the drug anyway.

In 2017, Dr. Sanacora, who also is director of the Yale Depression Research Program at the Yale School of Medicine, was the lead author of a consensus statement that sought to help physicians administer ketamine safely and appropriately in patients with severe depression and other mood disorders.

In that paper, Dr. Sanacora and his coauthors advocated for the creation of a ketamine registry. Such a database, they argued, would provide much-needed data for large, long-term studies, which could be used to develop treatment guidelines, certification programs, and possibly even accreditation standards for providers. Meanwhile, researchers and clinicians in the United Kingdom were also calling for a ketamine registry.

While there seemed to be wide consensus that such a registry was needed, there was no clear path to creating one and no clear line to an agency that would take responsibility for maintaining it.

Because the registry wouldn’t be tied to a drug indication, Dr. Sanacora was told the U.S. Food and Drug Administration wouldn’t take it on. The project also fell outside the purview of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and the DEA.

“I haven’t met anybody who has said this is a terrible idea, but nobody seems to have a clear mechanism of doing it, and it doesn’t seem to fall directly under anybody’s jurisdiction,” Dr. Sanacora said.

Dr. Sanacora and other ketamine registry advocates were met with an endless stream of questions. Who would pay for it? How would they get providers to participate? Who would run it and how would the data be shared? The barriers to implementation seemed insurmountable.
 

A changing landscape

Five years later, these barriers remain. However, advocates note support for a registry is growing, due in large part to a series of developments over the past 6 years that they believe have altered the ketamine landscape.

Chief among these was the 2019 FDA approval of esketamine, a nasal formulation of ketamine, for the treatment of resistant depression. The drug’s indication was expanded in 2020 to include major depressive disorder and acute suicidal ideation or behavior. The drug is only available through a restricted distribution system – the Spravato Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) – because of the risk for serious adverse events, including sedation and dissociation, as well as the potential for abuse or misuse.

A sharp increase in the number of ketamine prescribers and clinics has also heightened interest in a ketamine registry. In the last year alone, membership in the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists, and Practitioners (ASKP) – a nonprofit trade organization for clinicians who prescribe ketamine for mental health disorders and pain conditions – swelled from 300 individual providers to more than 500.

The number of ketamine clinics in the United States has also grown exponentially and is estimated to be anywhere from 500 to 750. A spokesperson with HHS said such clinics are not regulated by the department or any other federal agency but instead are subject to oversight by individual states.

Although recreational use of ketamine remains low overall, there are signs that illicit use is rising, including an increase in DEA seizures of illicit ketamine and reports of ketamine-related poisonings to the nation’s poison control centers. Data on recreational use is spotty, at best. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Vital Statistics System – the primary source of information on drug-related mortality in the United States – does not report on ketamine.
 

At-home ketamine use soars

Perhaps the most significant development came in March 2020 in the early days of the pandemic. To ease access to therapeutic schedule II-V controlled substances, the DEA issued a waiver that relaxed restrictions in the Ryan Haight Act, legislation that requires that patients be seen at least once in person before receiving a prescription for this class of drugs.

Under the waiver, DEA-registered practitioners are allowed to prescribe these substances – including ketamine, a schedule III substance – via telemedicine, without an in-person exam.

Startup companies cropped up almost overnight to prescribe oral ketamine online for at-home use, with almost no oversight. A spokesperson with the DEA told this news organization that the agency is working to make these “temporary” regulations permanent.

Under the relaxed DEA guidelines, a prescriber only needs to have a DEA license to dispense a ketamine prescription. An alarming number of clinics and online startups are staffed by individuals with no training in ketamine use and, in some cases, no formal mental health training at all, said Lisa Harding, MD, vice president of ASKP and a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine.

“The biggest problem is not the ketamine itself, it’s that the majority of practitioners are not psychiatrists, so they don’t have mental health training,” Dr. Harding said. “The fact that an untrained person, any practitioner with no mental health training, can administer this treatment once they have a state license to give ketamine ... then how are you protecting the patients?”

That question prompted ASKP to create the first known program to train psychiatrists, and other qualified mental health practitioners who prescribe ketamine, how to use the drug safely and effectively. The program, scheduled for June, will also include discussion by leaders in the field about how a ketamine registry might address these and other patient safety concerns.

“Nobody is really investigating the standard to which these clinics and online companies should be held, and I think a registry would help with that,” she said in an interview.
 

The path forward

While ASKP leadership supports the idea of a ketamine registry, Dr. Harding said the organization would need assurances the effort would not create a barrier to treatment.

“It will take somebody bringing all of us to the table and figuring that out,” Dr. Harding said.

Conversations like that with stakeholders would be one of the first steps toward creating a registry, Dr. Sanacora said.

“The more complicated we make this registry, the less compliance we’re going to get,” Dr. Sanacora said. “Our first step is to understand the major impediments and figure out how we can make this easier for people.”

Ideally, the registry would take advantage of existing data-collection tools, such as electronic health records (EHR), and include some sort of patient data entry mechanism, Dr. Sanacora said. The effort will also require skilled biostatisticians and a database system that is easy to manage.

And, of course, the registry will need a large number of patients to gather sufficient data to conduct high-quality research to develop treatment guidelines, training, and accreditation standards. A good target would be about 10,000 patients, Dr. Sanacora said.

All of this requires funding, which is the first hurdle registry advocates must clear. Dr. Sanacora is working on identifying funding sources and said that after working on this for years, he is hopeful that progress can be made.

“I had reached a point where it felt like there was no path forward,” Dr. Sanacora said. “But now I have renewed optimism that something can be done. And something does need to be done, largely for public health reasons but also to optimize the treatment.”

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

Off-label use of ketamine, the anesthetic-turned-potential treatment for resistant depression, is soaring in the United States and has many experts in the psychiatric community concerned.

The number of ketamine clinics has risen dramatically, with little to no oversight. Prescriptions are being written by providers who lack training in safe ketamine use and online startups are selling the drug for at-home use, taking advantage of a temporary federal regulation that makes it easier to prescribe controlled substances without an in-person patient assessment.

All of this comes at a time when recreational use of ketamine, known on the street as “Special K,” is rising, and reports to poison control centers and drug seizures by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) are climbing.

In a scenario where enthusiasm for the drug is larger than the body of evidence supporting its clinical use, support is growing for the creation of a ketamine registry to collect data on dosage, treatment frequency, adverse events, and long-term outcomes in patients receiving the therapy for depression and other mental health conditions.

“In the past, there was this question of whether a registry was even needed,” said Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who has pushed for a registry for more than 5 years.

“Now, not only are people being treated with this in large numbers, but it’s also started to push the envelope with at-home dosing,” Dr. Sanacora said in an interview. “It’s come to the point that everybody agrees we do need some way to track it.”
 

An idea whose time has come

Interest in ketamine’s antidepressant effects has grown since 2000, when a small study suggested the drug rapidly improved depressive symptoms. Research now suggests ketamine reduces symptoms in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

Studies linking ketamine to relief of depressive symptoms are small and mostly retrospective, and none has offered longitudinal information on long-term outcomes, including side effects and the risk of addiction.

Still, clinicians desperate to help the one-third of patients with major depression who fail to respond to first-line treatments often prescribe the drug anyway.

In 2017, Dr. Sanacora, who also is director of the Yale Depression Research Program at the Yale School of Medicine, was the lead author of a consensus statement that sought to help physicians administer ketamine safely and appropriately in patients with severe depression and other mood disorders.

In that paper, Dr. Sanacora and his coauthors advocated for the creation of a ketamine registry. Such a database, they argued, would provide much-needed data for large, long-term studies, which could be used to develop treatment guidelines, certification programs, and possibly even accreditation standards for providers. Meanwhile, researchers and clinicians in the United Kingdom were also calling for a ketamine registry.

While there seemed to be wide consensus that such a registry was needed, there was no clear path to creating one and no clear line to an agency that would take responsibility for maintaining it.

Because the registry wouldn’t be tied to a drug indication, Dr. Sanacora was told the U.S. Food and Drug Administration wouldn’t take it on. The project also fell outside the purview of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and the DEA.

“I haven’t met anybody who has said this is a terrible idea, but nobody seems to have a clear mechanism of doing it, and it doesn’t seem to fall directly under anybody’s jurisdiction,” Dr. Sanacora said.

Dr. Sanacora and other ketamine registry advocates were met with an endless stream of questions. Who would pay for it? How would they get providers to participate? Who would run it and how would the data be shared? The barriers to implementation seemed insurmountable.
 

A changing landscape

Five years later, these barriers remain. However, advocates note support for a registry is growing, due in large part to a series of developments over the past 6 years that they believe have altered the ketamine landscape.

Chief among these was the 2019 FDA approval of esketamine, a nasal formulation of ketamine, for the treatment of resistant depression. The drug’s indication was expanded in 2020 to include major depressive disorder and acute suicidal ideation or behavior. The drug is only available through a restricted distribution system – the Spravato Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) – because of the risk for serious adverse events, including sedation and dissociation, as well as the potential for abuse or misuse.

A sharp increase in the number of ketamine prescribers and clinics has also heightened interest in a ketamine registry. In the last year alone, membership in the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists, and Practitioners (ASKP) – a nonprofit trade organization for clinicians who prescribe ketamine for mental health disorders and pain conditions – swelled from 300 individual providers to more than 500.

The number of ketamine clinics in the United States has also grown exponentially and is estimated to be anywhere from 500 to 750. A spokesperson with HHS said such clinics are not regulated by the department or any other federal agency but instead are subject to oversight by individual states.

Although recreational use of ketamine remains low overall, there are signs that illicit use is rising, including an increase in DEA seizures of illicit ketamine and reports of ketamine-related poisonings to the nation’s poison control centers. Data on recreational use is spotty, at best. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Vital Statistics System – the primary source of information on drug-related mortality in the United States – does not report on ketamine.
 

At-home ketamine use soars

Perhaps the most significant development came in March 2020 in the early days of the pandemic. To ease access to therapeutic schedule II-V controlled substances, the DEA issued a waiver that relaxed restrictions in the Ryan Haight Act, legislation that requires that patients be seen at least once in person before receiving a prescription for this class of drugs.

Under the waiver, DEA-registered practitioners are allowed to prescribe these substances – including ketamine, a schedule III substance – via telemedicine, without an in-person exam.

Startup companies cropped up almost overnight to prescribe oral ketamine online for at-home use, with almost no oversight. A spokesperson with the DEA told this news organization that the agency is working to make these “temporary” regulations permanent.

Under the relaxed DEA guidelines, a prescriber only needs to have a DEA license to dispense a ketamine prescription. An alarming number of clinics and online startups are staffed by individuals with no training in ketamine use and, in some cases, no formal mental health training at all, said Lisa Harding, MD, vice president of ASKP and a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine.

“The biggest problem is not the ketamine itself, it’s that the majority of practitioners are not psychiatrists, so they don’t have mental health training,” Dr. Harding said. “The fact that an untrained person, any practitioner with no mental health training, can administer this treatment once they have a state license to give ketamine ... then how are you protecting the patients?”

That question prompted ASKP to create the first known program to train psychiatrists, and other qualified mental health practitioners who prescribe ketamine, how to use the drug safely and effectively. The program, scheduled for June, will also include discussion by leaders in the field about how a ketamine registry might address these and other patient safety concerns.

“Nobody is really investigating the standard to which these clinics and online companies should be held, and I think a registry would help with that,” she said in an interview.
 

The path forward

While ASKP leadership supports the idea of a ketamine registry, Dr. Harding said the organization would need assurances the effort would not create a barrier to treatment.

“It will take somebody bringing all of us to the table and figuring that out,” Dr. Harding said.

Conversations like that with stakeholders would be one of the first steps toward creating a registry, Dr. Sanacora said.

“The more complicated we make this registry, the less compliance we’re going to get,” Dr. Sanacora said. “Our first step is to understand the major impediments and figure out how we can make this easier for people.”

Ideally, the registry would take advantage of existing data-collection tools, such as electronic health records (EHR), and include some sort of patient data entry mechanism, Dr. Sanacora said. The effort will also require skilled biostatisticians and a database system that is easy to manage.

And, of course, the registry will need a large number of patients to gather sufficient data to conduct high-quality research to develop treatment guidelines, training, and accreditation standards. A good target would be about 10,000 patients, Dr. Sanacora said.

All of this requires funding, which is the first hurdle registry advocates must clear. Dr. Sanacora is working on identifying funding sources and said that after working on this for years, he is hopeful that progress can be made.

“I had reached a point where it felt like there was no path forward,” Dr. Sanacora said. “But now I have renewed optimism that something can be done. And something does need to be done, largely for public health reasons but also to optimize the treatment.”

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

Off-label use of ketamine, the anesthetic-turned-potential treatment for resistant depression, is soaring in the United States and has many experts in the psychiatric community concerned.

The number of ketamine clinics has risen dramatically, with little to no oversight. Prescriptions are being written by providers who lack training in safe ketamine use and online startups are selling the drug for at-home use, taking advantage of a temporary federal regulation that makes it easier to prescribe controlled substances without an in-person patient assessment.

All of this comes at a time when recreational use of ketamine, known on the street as “Special K,” is rising, and reports to poison control centers and drug seizures by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) are climbing.

In a scenario where enthusiasm for the drug is larger than the body of evidence supporting its clinical use, support is growing for the creation of a ketamine registry to collect data on dosage, treatment frequency, adverse events, and long-term outcomes in patients receiving the therapy for depression and other mental health conditions.

“In the past, there was this question of whether a registry was even needed,” said Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who has pushed for a registry for more than 5 years.

“Now, not only are people being treated with this in large numbers, but it’s also started to push the envelope with at-home dosing,” Dr. Sanacora said in an interview. “It’s come to the point that everybody agrees we do need some way to track it.”
 

An idea whose time has come

Interest in ketamine’s antidepressant effects has grown since 2000, when a small study suggested the drug rapidly improved depressive symptoms. Research now suggests ketamine reduces symptoms in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

Studies linking ketamine to relief of depressive symptoms are small and mostly retrospective, and none has offered longitudinal information on long-term outcomes, including side effects and the risk of addiction.

Still, clinicians desperate to help the one-third of patients with major depression who fail to respond to first-line treatments often prescribe the drug anyway.

In 2017, Dr. Sanacora, who also is director of the Yale Depression Research Program at the Yale School of Medicine, was the lead author of a consensus statement that sought to help physicians administer ketamine safely and appropriately in patients with severe depression and other mood disorders.

In that paper, Dr. Sanacora and his coauthors advocated for the creation of a ketamine registry. Such a database, they argued, would provide much-needed data for large, long-term studies, which could be used to develop treatment guidelines, certification programs, and possibly even accreditation standards for providers. Meanwhile, researchers and clinicians in the United Kingdom were also calling for a ketamine registry.

While there seemed to be wide consensus that such a registry was needed, there was no clear path to creating one and no clear line to an agency that would take responsibility for maintaining it.

Because the registry wouldn’t be tied to a drug indication, Dr. Sanacora was told the U.S. Food and Drug Administration wouldn’t take it on. The project also fell outside the purview of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and the DEA.

“I haven’t met anybody who has said this is a terrible idea, but nobody seems to have a clear mechanism of doing it, and it doesn’t seem to fall directly under anybody’s jurisdiction,” Dr. Sanacora said.

Dr. Sanacora and other ketamine registry advocates were met with an endless stream of questions. Who would pay for it? How would they get providers to participate? Who would run it and how would the data be shared? The barriers to implementation seemed insurmountable.
 

A changing landscape

Five years later, these barriers remain. However, advocates note support for a registry is growing, due in large part to a series of developments over the past 6 years that they believe have altered the ketamine landscape.

Chief among these was the 2019 FDA approval of esketamine, a nasal formulation of ketamine, for the treatment of resistant depression. The drug’s indication was expanded in 2020 to include major depressive disorder and acute suicidal ideation or behavior. The drug is only available through a restricted distribution system – the Spravato Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) – because of the risk for serious adverse events, including sedation and dissociation, as well as the potential for abuse or misuse.

A sharp increase in the number of ketamine prescribers and clinics has also heightened interest in a ketamine registry. In the last year alone, membership in the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists, and Practitioners (ASKP) – a nonprofit trade organization for clinicians who prescribe ketamine for mental health disorders and pain conditions – swelled from 300 individual providers to more than 500.

The number of ketamine clinics in the United States has also grown exponentially and is estimated to be anywhere from 500 to 750. A spokesperson with HHS said such clinics are not regulated by the department or any other federal agency but instead are subject to oversight by individual states.

Although recreational use of ketamine remains low overall, there are signs that illicit use is rising, including an increase in DEA seizures of illicit ketamine and reports of ketamine-related poisonings to the nation’s poison control centers. Data on recreational use is spotty, at best. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Vital Statistics System – the primary source of information on drug-related mortality in the United States – does not report on ketamine.
 

At-home ketamine use soars

Perhaps the most significant development came in March 2020 in the early days of the pandemic. To ease access to therapeutic schedule II-V controlled substances, the DEA issued a waiver that relaxed restrictions in the Ryan Haight Act, legislation that requires that patients be seen at least once in person before receiving a prescription for this class of drugs.

Under the waiver, DEA-registered practitioners are allowed to prescribe these substances – including ketamine, a schedule III substance – via telemedicine, without an in-person exam.

Startup companies cropped up almost overnight to prescribe oral ketamine online for at-home use, with almost no oversight. A spokesperson with the DEA told this news organization that the agency is working to make these “temporary” regulations permanent.

Under the relaxed DEA guidelines, a prescriber only needs to have a DEA license to dispense a ketamine prescription. An alarming number of clinics and online startups are staffed by individuals with no training in ketamine use and, in some cases, no formal mental health training at all, said Lisa Harding, MD, vice president of ASKP and a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine.

“The biggest problem is not the ketamine itself, it’s that the majority of practitioners are not psychiatrists, so they don’t have mental health training,” Dr. Harding said. “The fact that an untrained person, any practitioner with no mental health training, can administer this treatment once they have a state license to give ketamine ... then how are you protecting the patients?”

That question prompted ASKP to create the first known program to train psychiatrists, and other qualified mental health practitioners who prescribe ketamine, how to use the drug safely and effectively. The program, scheduled for June, will also include discussion by leaders in the field about how a ketamine registry might address these and other patient safety concerns.

“Nobody is really investigating the standard to which these clinics and online companies should be held, and I think a registry would help with that,” she said in an interview.
 

The path forward

While ASKP leadership supports the idea of a ketamine registry, Dr. Harding said the organization would need assurances the effort would not create a barrier to treatment.

“It will take somebody bringing all of us to the table and figuring that out,” Dr. Harding said.

Conversations like that with stakeholders would be one of the first steps toward creating a registry, Dr. Sanacora said.

“The more complicated we make this registry, the less compliance we’re going to get,” Dr. Sanacora said. “Our first step is to understand the major impediments and figure out how we can make this easier for people.”

Ideally, the registry would take advantage of existing data-collection tools, such as electronic health records (EHR), and include some sort of patient data entry mechanism, Dr. Sanacora said. The effort will also require skilled biostatisticians and a database system that is easy to manage.

And, of course, the registry will need a large number of patients to gather sufficient data to conduct high-quality research to develop treatment guidelines, training, and accreditation standards. A good target would be about 10,000 patients, Dr. Sanacora said.

All of this requires funding, which is the first hurdle registry advocates must clear. Dr. Sanacora is working on identifying funding sources and said that after working on this for years, he is hopeful that progress can be made.

“I had reached a point where it felt like there was no path forward,” Dr. Sanacora said. “But now I have renewed optimism that something can be done. And something does need to be done, largely for public health reasons but also to optimize the treatment.”

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

Young premenopausal women with early stage hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer have notable genomic features that may help explain their historically poor outcomes and offer clues about molecular targets for future trials.

Compared with older women with early stage HR-positive breast cancer, women under 40 years of age had significantly higher frequencies of certain mutations, such as GATA3, as well as genomic features associated with a poor prognosis. Notably, the researchers found that women with such poor prognostic features vs. those with none had a significantly worse 8-year distant recurrence-free interval and overall survival.

“We have demonstrated age-related differences in genomic profiles with enrichment of genomic features associated with poor prognosis in these younger premenopausal women compared with older premenopausal and postmenopausal women,” the authors wrote in the study, published in the Annals of Oncology. Importantly, the genomic features highlight “the potential for age-focused treatment strategies.”

Charis Eng, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Genomic Medicine Institute, Ohio, noted that the findings are promising but need further validation.

“With time and the appropriate clinical trials in place, I envision that these findings will enable the personalized genomics-driven management of these cancers – not only treatment, but also toward prevention,” said Dr. Eng, who was not involved in the study.

Young premenopausal women, particularly those with HR-positive, luminal breast cancer, are known to have significantly higher recurrence rates and worse survival, compared with older women, but the reasons have remained unclear.

Although previous studies have identified key gene expression signatures linked to worse outcomes in younger patients with breast cancer, there are limited data on this younger patient population, especially by breast cancer subtype. Given that breast cancer treatment strategies are often similar across age groups, such evidence gaps could represent missed opportunities for developing more targeted treatment strategies for this high-risk population of young women.

To further investigate the cancer-specific genetic profiles in younger women, Sherene Loi, MD, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, and colleagues turned to data from the pivotal, multicenter Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT).

Using next-generation sequencing, Dr. Loi and colleagues evaluated HR-positive, HER2-negative tumors among a subset of 1,276 premenopausal women who were diagnosed with early stage breast cancer. The study employed deep-targeted sequencing for most patients (n = 1,258) as well as whole-exome sequencing in a matched case-control subsample of young women with a median age of 38 years (n = 82).

Compared with women aged 40 and older, those under 40 years of age (n = 359) had significantly higher frequencies of mutations in GATA3 (19% vs. 16%) and copy number-amplifications (47% vs. 26%).

Younger women also had significantly higher features suggestive of homologous recombination deficiency (27% vs. 21% in older women), and a higher proportion of PIK3CA mutations with concurrent copy number-amplifications (23% vs. 11%, respectively), all considered to be poor prognostic features.

In addition, younger women had significantly lower frequencies of certain mutations, including PIK3CA (32% vs. 47%), CDH1 (3% vs. 9%), and MAP3K1 (7% vs. 12%), compared with older women.

Overall, 46% of women had poor prognostic features. These poor prognostic features were observed in 72% of patients under age 35, compared with 54% aged 35-39, and 40% of those 40 and over.

Compared with women without those features, women with poor prognostic features had a lower 8-year distant recurrence-free interval of 84% vs. 94% (hazard ratio, 1.85), and worse 8-year overall survival of 88% vs. 96%, respectively (HR, 2.20). Notably, younger women under age 40 had the poorest outcomes, with an 8-year distant recurrence-free interval rate of 74% vs. 85% in older women, and an 8-year overall survival of 80% vs. 93%, respectively.

How might these results inform potential therapeutics?

Drugs targeting the homologous recombination deficiency pathway are well established, and up to 36% of very young patients in the study showed genomic features of homologous recombination deficiency, the authors noted.

In addition, Dr. Eng explained, there are other Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments that can target the copy number amplified, PIK3CA-mutated tumors, including therapies that target PIK3CA itself, or proteins downstream of it. However, use of such therapies would need “to be tested experimentally, especially since pathway inhibition sometimes may result in rebound signaling to promote tumor growth,” Dr. Eng said.

An important caveat is that patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be underrepresented in the SOFT clinical trial, as the trial excluded patients who already had bilateral oophorectomy or planned to within 5 years, the authors noted.

Nevertheless, Dr. Loi said that the study is important because “there are no other datasets as large or with this long follow-up for very young women with breast cancer.”

Furthermore, “the SOFT clinical trial was practice-changing, so using the tumor samples associated with this study is more impactful than smaller cohorts with no outcome data or institutional retrospective cohorts,” she said.

Dr. Eng agreed that the study’s size is an important attribute, allowing the authors to “identify differences that would have been missed in a smaller and more heterogeneous series.”

She added that future research should also include ancestry and racial diversity.

“While young women have higher occurrences of aggressive breast cancers, mortality is twice as likely in young Black women, compared to young White women,” Dr. Eng said.

The study received funding from a Susan G. Komen for the Cure Promise Grant, the National Health and Research Council of Australia, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the National Breast Cancer Foundation of Australia, and support from the family of Judy Eisman in Australia. Dr. Loi and Dr. Eng report no relevant financial disclosures.
 

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

Young premenopausal women with early stage hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer have notable genomic features that may help explain their historically poor outcomes and offer clues about molecular targets for future trials.

Compared with older women with early stage HR-positive breast cancer, women under 40 years of age had significantly higher frequencies of certain mutations, such as GATA3, as well as genomic features associated with a poor prognosis. Notably, the researchers found that women with such poor prognostic features vs. those with none had a significantly worse 8-year distant recurrence-free interval and overall survival.

“We have demonstrated age-related differences in genomic profiles with enrichment of genomic features associated with poor prognosis in these younger premenopausal women compared with older premenopausal and postmenopausal women,” the authors wrote in the study, published in the Annals of Oncology. Importantly, the genomic features highlight “the potential for age-focused treatment strategies.”

Charis Eng, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Genomic Medicine Institute, Ohio, noted that the findings are promising but need further validation.

“With time and the appropriate clinical trials in place, I envision that these findings will enable the personalized genomics-driven management of these cancers – not only treatment, but also toward prevention,” said Dr. Eng, who was not involved in the study.

Young premenopausal women, particularly those with HR-positive, luminal breast cancer, are known to have significantly higher recurrence rates and worse survival, compared with older women, but the reasons have remained unclear.

Although previous studies have identified key gene expression signatures linked to worse outcomes in younger patients with breast cancer, there are limited data on this younger patient population, especially by breast cancer subtype. Given that breast cancer treatment strategies are often similar across age groups, such evidence gaps could represent missed opportunities for developing more targeted treatment strategies for this high-risk population of young women.

To further investigate the cancer-specific genetic profiles in younger women, Sherene Loi, MD, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, and colleagues turned to data from the pivotal, multicenter Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT).

Using next-generation sequencing, Dr. Loi and colleagues evaluated HR-positive, HER2-negative tumors among a subset of 1,276 premenopausal women who were diagnosed with early stage breast cancer. The study employed deep-targeted sequencing for most patients (n = 1,258) as well as whole-exome sequencing in a matched case-control subsample of young women with a median age of 38 years (n = 82).

Compared with women aged 40 and older, those under 40 years of age (n = 359) had significantly higher frequencies of mutations in GATA3 (19% vs. 16%) and copy number-amplifications (47% vs. 26%).

Younger women also had significantly higher features suggestive of homologous recombination deficiency (27% vs. 21% in older women), and a higher proportion of PIK3CA mutations with concurrent copy number-amplifications (23% vs. 11%, respectively), all considered to be poor prognostic features.

In addition, younger women had significantly lower frequencies of certain mutations, including PIK3CA (32% vs. 47%), CDH1 (3% vs. 9%), and MAP3K1 (7% vs. 12%), compared with older women.

Overall, 46% of women had poor prognostic features. These poor prognostic features were observed in 72% of patients under age 35, compared with 54% aged 35-39, and 40% of those 40 and over.

Compared with women without those features, women with poor prognostic features had a lower 8-year distant recurrence-free interval of 84% vs. 94% (hazard ratio, 1.85), and worse 8-year overall survival of 88% vs. 96%, respectively (HR, 2.20). Notably, younger women under age 40 had the poorest outcomes, with an 8-year distant recurrence-free interval rate of 74% vs. 85% in older women, and an 8-year overall survival of 80% vs. 93%, respectively.

How might these results inform potential therapeutics?

Drugs targeting the homologous recombination deficiency pathway are well established, and up to 36% of very young patients in the study showed genomic features of homologous recombination deficiency, the authors noted.

In addition, Dr. Eng explained, there are other Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments that can target the copy number amplified, PIK3CA-mutated tumors, including therapies that target PIK3CA itself, or proteins downstream of it. However, use of such therapies would need “to be tested experimentally, especially since pathway inhibition sometimes may result in rebound signaling to promote tumor growth,” Dr. Eng said.

An important caveat is that patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be underrepresented in the SOFT clinical trial, as the trial excluded patients who already had bilateral oophorectomy or planned to within 5 years, the authors noted.

Nevertheless, Dr. Loi said that the study is important because “there are no other datasets as large or with this long follow-up for very young women with breast cancer.”

Furthermore, “the SOFT clinical trial was practice-changing, so using the tumor samples associated with this study is more impactful than smaller cohorts with no outcome data or institutional retrospective cohorts,” she said.

Dr. Eng agreed that the study’s size is an important attribute, allowing the authors to “identify differences that would have been missed in a smaller and more heterogeneous series.”

She added that future research should also include ancestry and racial diversity.

“While young women have higher occurrences of aggressive breast cancers, mortality is twice as likely in young Black women, compared to young White women,” Dr. Eng said.

The study received funding from a Susan G. Komen for the Cure Promise Grant, the National Health and Research Council of Australia, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the National Breast Cancer Foundation of Australia, and support from the family of Judy Eisman in Australia. Dr. Loi and Dr. Eng report no relevant financial disclosures.
 

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

Young premenopausal women with early stage hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer have notable genomic features that may help explain their historically poor outcomes and offer clues about molecular targets for future trials.

Compared with older women with early stage HR-positive breast cancer, women under 40 years of age had significantly higher frequencies of certain mutations, such as GATA3, as well as genomic features associated with a poor prognosis. Notably, the researchers found that women with such poor prognostic features vs. those with none had a significantly worse 8-year distant recurrence-free interval and overall survival.

“We have demonstrated age-related differences in genomic profiles with enrichment of genomic features associated with poor prognosis in these younger premenopausal women compared with older premenopausal and postmenopausal women,” the authors wrote in the study, published in the Annals of Oncology. Importantly, the genomic features highlight “the potential for age-focused treatment strategies.”

Charis Eng, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Genomic Medicine Institute, Ohio, noted that the findings are promising but need further validation.

“With time and the appropriate clinical trials in place, I envision that these findings will enable the personalized genomics-driven management of these cancers – not only treatment, but also toward prevention,” said Dr. Eng, who was not involved in the study.

Young premenopausal women, particularly those with HR-positive, luminal breast cancer, are known to have significantly higher recurrence rates and worse survival, compared with older women, but the reasons have remained unclear.

Although previous studies have identified key gene expression signatures linked to worse outcomes in younger patients with breast cancer, there are limited data on this younger patient population, especially by breast cancer subtype. Given that breast cancer treatment strategies are often similar across age groups, such evidence gaps could represent missed opportunities for developing more targeted treatment strategies for this high-risk population of young women.

To further investigate the cancer-specific genetic profiles in younger women, Sherene Loi, MD, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, and colleagues turned to data from the pivotal, multicenter Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT).

Using next-generation sequencing, Dr. Loi and colleagues evaluated HR-positive, HER2-negative tumors among a subset of 1,276 premenopausal women who were diagnosed with early stage breast cancer. The study employed deep-targeted sequencing for most patients (n = 1,258) as well as whole-exome sequencing in a matched case-control subsample of young women with a median age of 38 years (n = 82).

Compared with women aged 40 and older, those under 40 years of age (n = 359) had significantly higher frequencies of mutations in GATA3 (19% vs. 16%) and copy number-amplifications (47% vs. 26%).

Younger women also had significantly higher features suggestive of homologous recombination deficiency (27% vs. 21% in older women), and a higher proportion of PIK3CA mutations with concurrent copy number-amplifications (23% vs. 11%, respectively), all considered to be poor prognostic features.

In addition, younger women had significantly lower frequencies of certain mutations, including PIK3CA (32% vs. 47%), CDH1 (3% vs. 9%), and MAP3K1 (7% vs. 12%), compared with older women.

Overall, 46% of women had poor prognostic features. These poor prognostic features were observed in 72% of patients under age 35, compared with 54% aged 35-39, and 40% of those 40 and over.

Compared with women without those features, women with poor prognostic features had a lower 8-year distant recurrence-free interval of 84% vs. 94% (hazard ratio, 1.85), and worse 8-year overall survival of 88% vs. 96%, respectively (HR, 2.20). Notably, younger women under age 40 had the poorest outcomes, with an 8-year distant recurrence-free interval rate of 74% vs. 85% in older women, and an 8-year overall survival of 80% vs. 93%, respectively.

How might these results inform potential therapeutics?

Drugs targeting the homologous recombination deficiency pathway are well established, and up to 36% of very young patients in the study showed genomic features of homologous recombination deficiency, the authors noted.

In addition, Dr. Eng explained, there are other Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments that can target the copy number amplified, PIK3CA-mutated tumors, including therapies that target PIK3CA itself, or proteins downstream of it. However, use of such therapies would need “to be tested experimentally, especially since pathway inhibition sometimes may result in rebound signaling to promote tumor growth,” Dr. Eng said.

An important caveat is that patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be underrepresented in the SOFT clinical trial, as the trial excluded patients who already had bilateral oophorectomy or planned to within 5 years, the authors noted.

Nevertheless, Dr. Loi said that the study is important because “there are no other datasets as large or with this long follow-up for very young women with breast cancer.”

Furthermore, “the SOFT clinical trial was practice-changing, so using the tumor samples associated with this study is more impactful than smaller cohorts with no outcome data or institutional retrospective cohorts,” she said.

Dr. Eng agreed that the study’s size is an important attribute, allowing the authors to “identify differences that would have been missed in a smaller and more heterogeneous series.”

She added that future research should also include ancestry and racial diversity.

“While young women have higher occurrences of aggressive breast cancers, mortality is twice as likely in young Black women, compared to young White women,” Dr. Eng said.

The study received funding from a Susan G. Komen for the Cure Promise Grant, the National Health and Research Council of Australia, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the National Breast Cancer Foundation of Australia, and support from the family of Judy Eisman in Australia. Dr. Loi and Dr. Eng report no relevant financial disclosures.
 

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

Regularly using a mobile device as a calming strategy for your child could lead to worse behavioral challenges down the road, according to developmental behavioral pediatricians at University of Michigan Health C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital, Ann Arbor.

What to know

• Using a mobile device to distract children from how they are feeling may displace opportunities for them to develop independent, alternative methods to self-regulate, especially in early childhood.
• Signs of increased dysregulation could include rapid shifts between sadness and excitement, a sudden change in mood or feelings, and heightened impulsivity.
• The association between device-calming and emotional consequences may be particularly high among young boys and children who are already experiencing hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and a strong temperament that makes them more likely to react intensely to feelings such as anger, frustration, and sadness.
• While occasional use of media to occupy children is expected and understandable, it is important that it not become a primary or regular soothing tool, and children should be given clear expectations of when and where devices can be used.
• The preschool-to-kindergarten period is a developmental stage in which children may be more likely to exhibit difficult behaviors, such as tantrums, defiance, and intense emotions, but parents should resist using devices as a parenting strategy.
•  

This is a summary of the article, “Longitudinal Association Between Use of Mobile Devices for Calming and Emotional Reactivity and Executive Functioning in Children Aged 3 to 5 Years,” published in JAMA Pediatrics on Dec. 20, 2022. The full article can be found on jamanetwork.com. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Regularly using a mobile device as a calming strategy for your child could lead to worse behavioral challenges down the road, according to developmental behavioral pediatricians at University of Michigan Health C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital, Ann Arbor.

What to know

• Using a mobile device to distract children from how they are feeling may displace opportunities for them to develop independent, alternative methods to self-regulate, especially in early childhood.
• Signs of increased dysregulation could include rapid shifts between sadness and excitement, a sudden change in mood or feelings, and heightened impulsivity.
• The association between device-calming and emotional consequences may be particularly high among young boys and children who are already experiencing hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and a strong temperament that makes them more likely to react intensely to feelings such as anger, frustration, and sadness.
• While occasional use of media to occupy children is expected and understandable, it is important that it not become a primary or regular soothing tool, and children should be given clear expectations of when and where devices can be used.
• The preschool-to-kindergarten period is a developmental stage in which children may be more likely to exhibit difficult behaviors, such as tantrums, defiance, and intense emotions, but parents should resist using devices as a parenting strategy.
•  

This is a summary of the article, “Longitudinal Association Between Use of Mobile Devices for Calming and Emotional Reactivity and Executive Functioning in Children Aged 3 to 5 Years,” published in JAMA Pediatrics on Dec. 20, 2022. The full article can be found on jamanetwork.com. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Regularly using a mobile device as a calming strategy for your child could lead to worse behavioral challenges down the road, according to developmental behavioral pediatricians at University of Michigan Health C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital, Ann Arbor.

What to know

• Using a mobile device to distract children from how they are feeling may displace opportunities for them to develop independent, alternative methods to self-regulate, especially in early childhood.
• Signs of increased dysregulation could include rapid shifts between sadness and excitement, a sudden change in mood or feelings, and heightened impulsivity.
• The association between device-calming and emotional consequences may be particularly high among young boys and children who are already experiencing hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and a strong temperament that makes them more likely to react intensely to feelings such as anger, frustration, and sadness.
• While occasional use of media to occupy children is expected and understandable, it is important that it not become a primary or regular soothing tool, and children should be given clear expectations of when and where devices can be used.
• The preschool-to-kindergarten period is a developmental stage in which children may be more likely to exhibit difficult behaviors, such as tantrums, defiance, and intense emotions, but parents should resist using devices as a parenting strategy.
•  

This is a summary of the article, “Longitudinal Association Between Use of Mobile Devices for Calming and Emotional Reactivity and Executive Functioning in Children Aged 3 to 5 Years,” published in JAMA Pediatrics on Dec. 20, 2022. The full article can be found on jamanetwork.com. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Family medicine physician Kenneth Cheng, DO, was on-call at a local hospital when a nurse told him that a patient needing evaluation hated Asians.

“I talked to him about whether he was okay seeing me and he said yes,” Dr. Cheng said. “But I remained vigilant and conscious of what the patient was doing the whole time so he couldn’t take advantage of the situation.”

Dr. Cheng never turned his back to the patient and even backed out of the exam room. That encounter passed without incident. However, a urologist Dr. Cheng knew from residency wasn’t so fortunate. Ronald Gilbert, MD, of Newport Beach, Calif., was shot and killed by a patient in his office. The patient blamed him for complications following prostate surgery 25 years earlier.

In 2022, a gunman in Tulsa, Okla., blamed his physician for pain from a recent back surgery and shot and killed him, another physician, and two others in a medical building before taking his own life.

Nearly 9 in 10 physicians reported in a recent Medscape poll that they had experienced one or more violent or potentially violent incidents in the past year. The most common patient behaviors were verbal abuse, getting angry and leaving, and behaving erratically.

About one in three respondents said that the patients threatened to harm them, and about one in five said that the patients became violent.

Experts say that many factors contribute to this potentially lethal situation: Health care services have become more impersonal, patients experience longer wait times, some abuse prescription drugs, mental health services are lacking, and security is poor or nonexistent at some health care facilities.

Violence against hospital workers has become so common that a bill was introduced in 2022 in Congress to better protect them. The Safety From Violence for Healthcare Employees Act includes stiffer penalties for acts involving the use of a dangerous weapon or committed during a public emergency and would also provide $25 million in grants to hospitals for programs aimed at reducing violent incidents in health care settings, including de-escalation training. The American Hospital Association and American College of Emergency Physicians support the bill, which is now before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
 

The worst day of their lives

“You have people who already are having the worst day of their lives and feeling on edge. If they already have a short fuse or substance abuse issues, that can translate into agitation, violence, or aggression,” said Scott Zeller, MD, vice president of acute psychiatry at Vituity, a physician-owned multispecialty group that operates in several states.

Health care workers in psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals were 10 times more likely to experience nonfatal injuries by others in 2018 than were health care workers in ambulatory settings, according to an April 2020 Bureau of Labor Statistics report. In addition, health care workers were five times more likely to suffer a workplace violence injury than were workers overall in 2018.

Psychiatrists who responded to the poll were the specialists most likely to report that they encountered violent patients and potentially violent patients. “Historically, inpatient psychiatry, which requires more acute care and monitoring, is considered the most dangerous profession outside of the police,” said Dr. Zeller.

Emergency physicians have reported an uptick in violence from patients; 85% said in a survey by ACEP in 2022 that they believed the rate of violence in emergency departments has increased over the past 5 years, whereas 45% indicated that it has greatly increased.

Some doctors have been threatened with violence or actually killed by family members. Alex Skog, MD, president-elect of ACEP’s Oregon chapter, told HealthCare Dive that “a patient’s family member with a gun holster on his hip threatened to kill me and kill my entire family after I told his father that he needed to be admitted because he had coronavirus.”

“I’ve been scared for my safety as well as the safety of my family,” Dr. Skog said. “That was just not something that we were seeing 3, 4, or 5 years ago.”

Many patients are already upset by the time they see doctors, according to the poll.

“The most common reason patients are upset is that they’re already in a lot of pain, which can be expressed as anger, hostility, or aggression. They’re very anxious and afraid of what’s happening and may be thinking about the worst-case scenario – that a bump or lump is cancer,” Dr. Zeller said.

Patients may also get upset if they disagree with their doctors’ diagnosis or treatment plan or the doctor refuses to prescribe them the drugs or tests they want.

“One doctor commented recently: ‘After over 30 years in this business, I can say patients are worse now than at any point in my career. Entitled, demanding, obnoxious. Any denial is met with outrage and indignity, whether it’s an opioid request or a demand for MRI of something because they ‘want to know.’ ”

An orthopedic surgeon in Indiana lost his life after he refused to prescribe opioids to a patient. Her angry husband shot and killed the doctor in the parking lot only 2 hours after confronting him in his office.
 

Decreased physician-patient trust

“When doctors experience something frightening, they become more apprehensive in the future. There’s no doubt that after the first violent experience, they think of things differently,” said Dr. Zeller.

More than half of the doctors who reported experiencing at least one violent or potentially violent incident in the poll said they trusted patients less.

This diminished trust can negatively impact the physician-patient relationship, said the authors of a recent Health Affairs article.

“The more patients harm their health care providers, intentionally or unintentionally, the more difficult it will be for those providers to trust them, leading to yet another unfortunate pattern: physicians pulling back on some of the behaviors thought to be most trust-building, for example, talking about their personal lives, building rapport, displaying compassion, or giving out their personal cell phone numbers,” the article stated.
 

What doctors can do

Most doctors who experienced a violent or potentially violent incident said they had tried to defuse the situation and that they succeeded at least some of the time, the poll results show.

One of the best ways to defuse a situation is to be empathetic and show the person that you’re on their side and not the enemy, said Dr. Cheng,.

“Rather than making general statements like ‘I understand that you’re upset,’ it’s better to be specific about the reason the person is upset. For example: ‘I understand that you’re upset that the pharmacy didn’t fill your prescription’ or ‘I understand how you’re feeling about Doctor So-and-so, who didn’t treat you right,’ ” Dr. Cheng stated.

Dr. Zeller urged physicians to talk to patients about why they’re upset and how they can help them. That approach worked with a patient who was having a psychotic episode.

“I told the staff, who wanted to forcibly restrain him and inject him with medication, that I would talk to him. I asked the patient, who was screaming ‘ya ya ya ya,’ whether he would take his medication if I gave it to him and he said yes. When he was calm, he explained that he was screaming to stop the voices telling him to kill his parents. He then got the help he needed,” said Dr. Zeller.

Dr. Cheng was trained in de-escalation techniques as an Orange County reserve deputy sheriff. He and Dr. Zeller recommended that physicians and staff receive training in how to spot potentially violent behavior and defuse these situations before they escalate.

Dr. Cheng suggests looking at the person’s body language for signs of increasing agitation or tension, such as clenched fists, tense posture, tight jaw, or fidgeting that may be accompanied by shouting and/or verbal abuse.

Physicians also need to consider where they are physically in relation to patients they see. “You don’t want to be too close to the patient or stand in front of them, which can be seen as confrontational. Instead, stand or sit off to the side, and never block the door if the patient’s upset,” said Dr. Cheng.

He recommended that physician practices prepare for violent incidents by developing detailed plans, including how and when to escape, how to protect patients, and how to cooperate with law enforcement.

“If a violent incident is inescapable, physicians and staff must be ready to fight back with whatever tools they have available, which may include fire extinguishers, chairs, or scalpels,” said Dr. Cheng.

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

Family medicine physician Kenneth Cheng, DO, was on-call at a local hospital when a nurse told him that a patient needing evaluation hated Asians.

“I talked to him about whether he was okay seeing me and he said yes,” Dr. Cheng said. “But I remained vigilant and conscious of what the patient was doing the whole time so he couldn’t take advantage of the situation.”

Dr. Cheng never turned his back to the patient and even backed out of the exam room. That encounter passed without incident. However, a urologist Dr. Cheng knew from residency wasn’t so fortunate. Ronald Gilbert, MD, of Newport Beach, Calif., was shot and killed by a patient in his office. The patient blamed him for complications following prostate surgery 25 years earlier.

In 2022, a gunman in Tulsa, Okla., blamed his physician for pain from a recent back surgery and shot and killed him, another physician, and two others in a medical building before taking his own life.

Nearly 9 in 10 physicians reported in a recent Medscape poll that they had experienced one or more violent or potentially violent incidents in the past year. The most common patient behaviors were verbal abuse, getting angry and leaving, and behaving erratically.

About one in three respondents said that the patients threatened to harm them, and about one in five said that the patients became violent.

Experts say that many factors contribute to this potentially lethal situation: Health care services have become more impersonal, patients experience longer wait times, some abuse prescription drugs, mental health services are lacking, and security is poor or nonexistent at some health care facilities.

Violence against hospital workers has become so common that a bill was introduced in 2022 in Congress to better protect them. The Safety From Violence for Healthcare Employees Act includes stiffer penalties for acts involving the use of a dangerous weapon or committed during a public emergency and would also provide $25 million in grants to hospitals for programs aimed at reducing violent incidents in health care settings, including de-escalation training. The American Hospital Association and American College of Emergency Physicians support the bill, which is now before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
 

The worst day of their lives

“You have people who already are having the worst day of their lives and feeling on edge. If they already have a short fuse or substance abuse issues, that can translate into agitation, violence, or aggression,” said Scott Zeller, MD, vice president of acute psychiatry at Vituity, a physician-owned multispecialty group that operates in several states.

Health care workers in psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals were 10 times more likely to experience nonfatal injuries by others in 2018 than were health care workers in ambulatory settings, according to an April 2020 Bureau of Labor Statistics report. In addition, health care workers were five times more likely to suffer a workplace violence injury than were workers overall in 2018.

Psychiatrists who responded to the poll were the specialists most likely to report that they encountered violent patients and potentially violent patients. “Historically, inpatient psychiatry, which requires more acute care and monitoring, is considered the most dangerous profession outside of the police,” said Dr. Zeller.

Emergency physicians have reported an uptick in violence from patients; 85% said in a survey by ACEP in 2022 that they believed the rate of violence in emergency departments has increased over the past 5 years, whereas 45% indicated that it has greatly increased.

Some doctors have been threatened with violence or actually killed by family members. Alex Skog, MD, president-elect of ACEP’s Oregon chapter, told HealthCare Dive that “a patient’s family member with a gun holster on his hip threatened to kill me and kill my entire family after I told his father that he needed to be admitted because he had coronavirus.”

“I’ve been scared for my safety as well as the safety of my family,” Dr. Skog said. “That was just not something that we were seeing 3, 4, or 5 years ago.”

Many patients are already upset by the time they see doctors, according to the poll.

“The most common reason patients are upset is that they’re already in a lot of pain, which can be expressed as anger, hostility, or aggression. They’re very anxious and afraid of what’s happening and may be thinking about the worst-case scenario – that a bump or lump is cancer,” Dr. Zeller said.

Patients may also get upset if they disagree with their doctors’ diagnosis or treatment plan or the doctor refuses to prescribe them the drugs or tests they want.

“One doctor commented recently: ‘After over 30 years in this business, I can say patients are worse now than at any point in my career. Entitled, demanding, obnoxious. Any denial is met with outrage and indignity, whether it’s an opioid request or a demand for MRI of something because they ‘want to know.’ ”

An orthopedic surgeon in Indiana lost his life after he refused to prescribe opioids to a patient. Her angry husband shot and killed the doctor in the parking lot only 2 hours after confronting him in his office.
 

Decreased physician-patient trust

“When doctors experience something frightening, they become more apprehensive in the future. There’s no doubt that after the first violent experience, they think of things differently,” said Dr. Zeller.

More than half of the doctors who reported experiencing at least one violent or potentially violent incident in the poll said they trusted patients less.

This diminished trust can negatively impact the physician-patient relationship, said the authors of a recent Health Affairs article.

“The more patients harm their health care providers, intentionally or unintentionally, the more difficult it will be for those providers to trust them, leading to yet another unfortunate pattern: physicians pulling back on some of the behaviors thought to be most trust-building, for example, talking about their personal lives, building rapport, displaying compassion, or giving out their personal cell phone numbers,” the article stated.
 

What doctors can do

Most doctors who experienced a violent or potentially violent incident said they had tried to defuse the situation and that they succeeded at least some of the time, the poll results show.

One of the best ways to defuse a situation is to be empathetic and show the person that you’re on their side and not the enemy, said Dr. Cheng,.

“Rather than making general statements like ‘I understand that you’re upset,’ it’s better to be specific about the reason the person is upset. For example: ‘I understand that you’re upset that the pharmacy didn’t fill your prescription’ or ‘I understand how you’re feeling about Doctor So-and-so, who didn’t treat you right,’ ” Dr. Cheng stated.

Dr. Zeller urged physicians to talk to patients about why they’re upset and how they can help them. That approach worked with a patient who was having a psychotic episode.

“I told the staff, who wanted to forcibly restrain him and inject him with medication, that I would talk to him. I asked the patient, who was screaming ‘ya ya ya ya,’ whether he would take his medication if I gave it to him and he said yes. When he was calm, he explained that he was screaming to stop the voices telling him to kill his parents. He then got the help he needed,” said Dr. Zeller.

Dr. Cheng was trained in de-escalation techniques as an Orange County reserve deputy sheriff. He and Dr. Zeller recommended that physicians and staff receive training in how to spot potentially violent behavior and defuse these situations before they escalate.

Dr. Cheng suggests looking at the person’s body language for signs of increasing agitation or tension, such as clenched fists, tense posture, tight jaw, or fidgeting that may be accompanied by shouting and/or verbal abuse.

Physicians also need to consider where they are physically in relation to patients they see. “You don’t want to be too close to the patient or stand in front of them, which can be seen as confrontational. Instead, stand or sit off to the side, and never block the door if the patient’s upset,” said Dr. Cheng.

He recommended that physician practices prepare for violent incidents by developing detailed plans, including how and when to escape, how to protect patients, and how to cooperate with law enforcement.

“If a violent incident is inescapable, physicians and staff must be ready to fight back with whatever tools they have available, which may include fire extinguishers, chairs, or scalpels,” said Dr. Cheng.

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

Family medicine physician Kenneth Cheng, DO, was on-call at a local hospital when a nurse told him that a patient needing evaluation hated Asians.

“I talked to him about whether he was okay seeing me and he said yes,” Dr. Cheng said. “But I remained vigilant and conscious of what the patient was doing the whole time so he couldn’t take advantage of the situation.”

Dr. Cheng never turned his back to the patient and even backed out of the exam room. That encounter passed without incident. However, a urologist Dr. Cheng knew from residency wasn’t so fortunate. Ronald Gilbert, MD, of Newport Beach, Calif., was shot and killed by a patient in his office. The patient blamed him for complications following prostate surgery 25 years earlier.

In 2022, a gunman in Tulsa, Okla., blamed his physician for pain from a recent back surgery and shot and killed him, another physician, and two others in a medical building before taking his own life.

Nearly 9 in 10 physicians reported in a recent Medscape poll that they had experienced one or more violent or potentially violent incidents in the past year. The most common patient behaviors were verbal abuse, getting angry and leaving, and behaving erratically.

About one in three respondents said that the patients threatened to harm them, and about one in five said that the patients became violent.

Experts say that many factors contribute to this potentially lethal situation: Health care services have become more impersonal, patients experience longer wait times, some abuse prescription drugs, mental health services are lacking, and security is poor or nonexistent at some health care facilities.

Violence against hospital workers has become so common that a bill was introduced in 2022 in Congress to better protect them. The Safety From Violence for Healthcare Employees Act includes stiffer penalties for acts involving the use of a dangerous weapon or committed during a public emergency and would also provide $25 million in grants to hospitals for programs aimed at reducing violent incidents in health care settings, including de-escalation training. The American Hospital Association and American College of Emergency Physicians support the bill, which is now before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
 

The worst day of their lives

“You have people who already are having the worst day of their lives and feeling on edge. If they already have a short fuse or substance abuse issues, that can translate into agitation, violence, or aggression,” said Scott Zeller, MD, vice president of acute psychiatry at Vituity, a physician-owned multispecialty group that operates in several states.

Health care workers in psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals were 10 times more likely to experience nonfatal injuries by others in 2018 than were health care workers in ambulatory settings, according to an April 2020 Bureau of Labor Statistics report. In addition, health care workers were five times more likely to suffer a workplace violence injury than were workers overall in 2018.

Psychiatrists who responded to the poll were the specialists most likely to report that they encountered violent patients and potentially violent patients. “Historically, inpatient psychiatry, which requires more acute care and monitoring, is considered the most dangerous profession outside of the police,” said Dr. Zeller.

Emergency physicians have reported an uptick in violence from patients; 85% said in a survey by ACEP in 2022 that they believed the rate of violence in emergency departments has increased over the past 5 years, whereas 45% indicated that it has greatly increased.

Some doctors have been threatened with violence or actually killed by family members. Alex Skog, MD, president-elect of ACEP’s Oregon chapter, told HealthCare Dive that “a patient’s family member with a gun holster on his hip threatened to kill me and kill my entire family after I told his father that he needed to be admitted because he had coronavirus.”

“I’ve been scared for my safety as well as the safety of my family,” Dr. Skog said. “That was just not something that we were seeing 3, 4, or 5 years ago.”

Many patients are already upset by the time they see doctors, according to the poll.

“The most common reason patients are upset is that they’re already in a lot of pain, which can be expressed as anger, hostility, or aggression. They’re very anxious and afraid of what’s happening and may be thinking about the worst-case scenario – that a bump or lump is cancer,” Dr. Zeller said.

Patients may also get upset if they disagree with their doctors’ diagnosis or treatment plan or the doctor refuses to prescribe them the drugs or tests they want.

“One doctor commented recently: ‘After over 30 years in this business, I can say patients are worse now than at any point in my career. Entitled, demanding, obnoxious. Any denial is met with outrage and indignity, whether it’s an opioid request or a demand for MRI of something because they ‘want to know.’ ”

An orthopedic surgeon in Indiana lost his life after he refused to prescribe opioids to a patient. Her angry husband shot and killed the doctor in the parking lot only 2 hours after confronting him in his office.
 

Decreased physician-patient trust

“When doctors experience something frightening, they become more apprehensive in the future. There’s no doubt that after the first violent experience, they think of things differently,” said Dr. Zeller.

More than half of the doctors who reported experiencing at least one violent or potentially violent incident in the poll said they trusted patients less.

This diminished trust can negatively impact the physician-patient relationship, said the authors of a recent Health Affairs article.

“The more patients harm their health care providers, intentionally or unintentionally, the more difficult it will be for those providers to trust them, leading to yet another unfortunate pattern: physicians pulling back on some of the behaviors thought to be most trust-building, for example, talking about their personal lives, building rapport, displaying compassion, or giving out their personal cell phone numbers,” the article stated.
 

What doctors can do

Most doctors who experienced a violent or potentially violent incident said they had tried to defuse the situation and that they succeeded at least some of the time, the poll results show.

One of the best ways to defuse a situation is to be empathetic and show the person that you’re on their side and not the enemy, said Dr. Cheng,.

“Rather than making general statements like ‘I understand that you’re upset,’ it’s better to be specific about the reason the person is upset. For example: ‘I understand that you’re upset that the pharmacy didn’t fill your prescription’ or ‘I understand how you’re feeling about Doctor So-and-so, who didn’t treat you right,’ ” Dr. Cheng stated.

Dr. Zeller urged physicians to talk to patients about why they’re upset and how they can help them. That approach worked with a patient who was having a psychotic episode.

“I told the staff, who wanted to forcibly restrain him and inject him with medication, that I would talk to him. I asked the patient, who was screaming ‘ya ya ya ya,’ whether he would take his medication if I gave it to him and he said yes. When he was calm, he explained that he was screaming to stop the voices telling him to kill his parents. He then got the help he needed,” said Dr. Zeller.

Dr. Cheng was trained in de-escalation techniques as an Orange County reserve deputy sheriff. He and Dr. Zeller recommended that physicians and staff receive training in how to spot potentially violent behavior and defuse these situations before they escalate.

Dr. Cheng suggests looking at the person’s body language for signs of increasing agitation or tension, such as clenched fists, tense posture, tight jaw, or fidgeting that may be accompanied by shouting and/or verbal abuse.

Physicians also need to consider where they are physically in relation to patients they see. “You don’t want to be too close to the patient or stand in front of them, which can be seen as confrontational. Instead, stand or sit off to the side, and never block the door if the patient’s upset,” said Dr. Cheng.

He recommended that physician practices prepare for violent incidents by developing detailed plans, including how and when to escape, how to protect patients, and how to cooperate with law enforcement.

“If a violent incident is inescapable, physicians and staff must be ready to fight back with whatever tools they have available, which may include fire extinguishers, chairs, or scalpels,” said Dr. Cheng.

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

It’s not often that a high school brawl with gang members sets you down a path to becoming a Harvard-trained doctor. But that’s exactly how Alister Martin’s life unfolded.

Alister Martin, MD, had initially planned to follow in his stepfather’s footsteps, managing the drug store in Neptune, N.J., township where he was raised. But a fight changed his prospects. 

In retrospect, he should have seen the whole thing coming. That night at the party, his best friend was attacked by a gang member from a nearby high school. Martin was not in a gang but he jumped into the fray to defend his friend. 

“I wanted to save the day, but that’s not what happened,” he says. “There were just too many of them.”

When his mother rushed to the hospital, he was so bruised and bloody that she couldn’t recognize him at first. Ever since he was a baby, she had done her best to shield him from the neighborhood where gang violence was a regular disruption. But it hadn’t worked. 

“My high school had a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence,” Martin says, “so even though I wasn’t in a gang, I was kicked out.”

Now expelled from high school, his mother wanted him out of town, fearing gang retaliation, or that Martin might seek vengeance on the boy who had brutally beaten him. So, the biology teacher and single mom who worked numerous jobs to keep them afloat, came up with a plan to get him far away from any temptations.

Martin had loved tennis since middle school, when his 8th-grade math teacher, Billie Weise, also a tennis pro, got him a job as a court sweeper at an upscale tennis club nearby. He knew nothing then about tennis but would come to fall in love with the sport. To get her son out of town, Martin’s mother took out loans for $30,000 and sent him to a Florida tennis training camp.

After 6 months of training, Martin, who earned a GED degree while attending the camp, was offered a scholarship to play tennis at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The transition to college was tough, however. He was nervous and felt out of place. “I could have died that first day. It became so obvious how poorly my high school education had prepared me for this.”

But the unease he felt was also motivating in a way. Worried about failure, “he locked himself in a room with another student and they studied day and night,” recalls Kamal Khan, director of the office for diversity and academic success at Rutgers. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

And Martin displayed other attributes that would draw others to him – and later prove important in his career as a doctor. His ability to display empathy and interact with students and teachers separated him from his peers, Mr. Khan says. “There’re a lot of really smart students out there,” he says, “but not many who understand people like Martin.”

After graduating, he decided to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He’d wanted to be a doctor since he was 10 years old after his mom was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. He remembers overhearing a conversation she was having with a family friend about where he would go if she died. 

“That’s when I knew it was serious,” he says.

Doctors saved her life, and it’s something he’ll never forget. But it wasn’t until his time at Rutgers that he finally had the confidence to think he could succeed in medical school.

Martin went on to attend Harvard Medical School and Harvard Kennedy School of Government as well as serving as chief resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was also a fellow at the White House in the Office of the Vice President and today, he’s an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston..

He is most at home in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he works as an emergency medical specialist. For him, the ER is the first line of defense for meeting the community’s health needs. Growing up in Neptune, the ER “was where poor folks got their care,” he says. His mom worked two jobs and when she got off work at 8 p.m. there was no pediatrician open. “When I was sick as a kid we always went to the emergency room,” he says.

While at Harvard, he also pursued a degree from the Kennedy School of Government, because of the huge role he feels that politics play in our health care system and especially in bringing care to impoverished communities. And since then he’s taken numerous steps to bridge the gap.

Addiction, for example, became an important issue for Martin, ever since a patient he encountered in his first week as an internist. She was a mom of two who had recently gotten surgery because she broke her ankle falling down the stairs at her child’s daycare, he says. Prescribed oxycodone, she feared she was becoming addicted and needed help. But at the time, there was nothing the ER could do. 

“I remember that look in her eyes when we had to turn her away,” he says. 

Martin has worked to change protocol at his hospital and others throughout the nation so they can be better set up to treat opioid addiction. He’s the founder of GetWaivered, an organization that trains doctors throughout the country to use evidence-based medicine to manage opioid addiction. In the U.S. doctors need what’s called a DEA X waiver to be able to prescribe buprenorphine to opioid-addicted patients. That means that currently only about 1% of all emergency room doctors nationwide have the waiver and without it, it’s impossible to help patients when they need it the most.

Shuhan He, MD, an internist with Martin at Massachusetts General Hospital who also works on the GetWaivered program, says Martin has a particular trait that helps him be successful. 

“He’s a doer and when he sees a problem, he’s gonna try and fix it.”

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

It’s not often that a high school brawl with gang members sets you down a path to becoming a Harvard-trained doctor. But that’s exactly how Alister Martin’s life unfolded.

Alister Martin, MD, had initially planned to follow in his stepfather’s footsteps, managing the drug store in Neptune, N.J., township where he was raised. But a fight changed his prospects. 

In retrospect, he should have seen the whole thing coming. That night at the party, his best friend was attacked by a gang member from a nearby high school. Martin was not in a gang but he jumped into the fray to defend his friend. 

“I wanted to save the day, but that’s not what happened,” he says. “There were just too many of them.”

When his mother rushed to the hospital, he was so bruised and bloody that she couldn’t recognize him at first. Ever since he was a baby, she had done her best to shield him from the neighborhood where gang violence was a regular disruption. But it hadn’t worked. 

“My high school had a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence,” Martin says, “so even though I wasn’t in a gang, I was kicked out.”

Now expelled from high school, his mother wanted him out of town, fearing gang retaliation, or that Martin might seek vengeance on the boy who had brutally beaten him. So, the biology teacher and single mom who worked numerous jobs to keep them afloat, came up with a plan to get him far away from any temptations.

Martin had loved tennis since middle school, when his 8th-grade math teacher, Billie Weise, also a tennis pro, got him a job as a court sweeper at an upscale tennis club nearby. He knew nothing then about tennis but would come to fall in love with the sport. To get her son out of town, Martin’s mother took out loans for $30,000 and sent him to a Florida tennis training camp.

After 6 months of training, Martin, who earned a GED degree while attending the camp, was offered a scholarship to play tennis at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The transition to college was tough, however. He was nervous and felt out of place. “I could have died that first day. It became so obvious how poorly my high school education had prepared me for this.”

But the unease he felt was also motivating in a way. Worried about failure, “he locked himself in a room with another student and they studied day and night,” recalls Kamal Khan, director of the office for diversity and academic success at Rutgers. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

And Martin displayed other attributes that would draw others to him – and later prove important in his career as a doctor. His ability to display empathy and interact with students and teachers separated him from his peers, Mr. Khan says. “There’re a lot of really smart students out there,” he says, “but not many who understand people like Martin.”

After graduating, he decided to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He’d wanted to be a doctor since he was 10 years old after his mom was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. He remembers overhearing a conversation she was having with a family friend about where he would go if she died. 

“That’s when I knew it was serious,” he says.

Doctors saved her life, and it’s something he’ll never forget. But it wasn’t until his time at Rutgers that he finally had the confidence to think he could succeed in medical school.

Martin went on to attend Harvard Medical School and Harvard Kennedy School of Government as well as serving as chief resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was also a fellow at the White House in the Office of the Vice President and today, he’s an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston..

He is most at home in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he works as an emergency medical specialist. For him, the ER is the first line of defense for meeting the community’s health needs. Growing up in Neptune, the ER “was where poor folks got their care,” he says. His mom worked two jobs and when she got off work at 8 p.m. there was no pediatrician open. “When I was sick as a kid we always went to the emergency room,” he says.

While at Harvard, he also pursued a degree from the Kennedy School of Government, because of the huge role he feels that politics play in our health care system and especially in bringing care to impoverished communities. And since then he’s taken numerous steps to bridge the gap.

Addiction, for example, became an important issue for Martin, ever since a patient he encountered in his first week as an internist. She was a mom of two who had recently gotten surgery because she broke her ankle falling down the stairs at her child’s daycare, he says. Prescribed oxycodone, she feared she was becoming addicted and needed help. But at the time, there was nothing the ER could do. 

“I remember that look in her eyes when we had to turn her away,” he says. 

Martin has worked to change protocol at his hospital and others throughout the nation so they can be better set up to treat opioid addiction. He’s the founder of GetWaivered, an organization that trains doctors throughout the country to use evidence-based medicine to manage opioid addiction. In the U.S. doctors need what’s called a DEA X waiver to be able to prescribe buprenorphine to opioid-addicted patients. That means that currently only about 1% of all emergency room doctors nationwide have the waiver and without it, it’s impossible to help patients when they need it the most.

Shuhan He, MD, an internist with Martin at Massachusetts General Hospital who also works on the GetWaivered program, says Martin has a particular trait that helps him be successful. 

“He’s a doer and when he sees a problem, he’s gonna try and fix it.”

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

It’s not often that a high school brawl with gang members sets you down a path to becoming a Harvard-trained doctor. But that’s exactly how Alister Martin’s life unfolded.

Alister Martin, MD, had initially planned to follow in his stepfather’s footsteps, managing the drug store in Neptune, N.J., township where he was raised. But a fight changed his prospects. 

In retrospect, he should have seen the whole thing coming. That night at the party, his best friend was attacked by a gang member from a nearby high school. Martin was not in a gang but he jumped into the fray to defend his friend. 

“I wanted to save the day, but that’s not what happened,” he says. “There were just too many of them.”

When his mother rushed to the hospital, he was so bruised and bloody that she couldn’t recognize him at first. Ever since he was a baby, she had done her best to shield him from the neighborhood where gang violence was a regular disruption. But it hadn’t worked. 

“My high school had a zero-tolerance policy for gang violence,” Martin says, “so even though I wasn’t in a gang, I was kicked out.”

Now expelled from high school, his mother wanted him out of town, fearing gang retaliation, or that Martin might seek vengeance on the boy who had brutally beaten him. So, the biology teacher and single mom who worked numerous jobs to keep them afloat, came up with a plan to get him far away from any temptations.

Martin had loved tennis since middle school, when his 8th-grade math teacher, Billie Weise, also a tennis pro, got him a job as a court sweeper at an upscale tennis club nearby. He knew nothing then about tennis but would come to fall in love with the sport. To get her son out of town, Martin’s mother took out loans for $30,000 and sent him to a Florida tennis training camp.

After 6 months of training, Martin, who earned a GED degree while attending the camp, was offered a scholarship to play tennis at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. The transition to college was tough, however. He was nervous and felt out of place. “I could have died that first day. It became so obvious how poorly my high school education had prepared me for this.”

But the unease he felt was also motivating in a way. Worried about failure, “he locked himself in a room with another student and they studied day and night,” recalls Kamal Khan, director of the office for diversity and academic success at Rutgers. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

And Martin displayed other attributes that would draw others to him – and later prove important in his career as a doctor. His ability to display empathy and interact with students and teachers separated him from his peers, Mr. Khan says. “There’re a lot of really smart students out there,” he says, “but not many who understand people like Martin.”

After graduating, he decided to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He’d wanted to be a doctor since he was 10 years old after his mom was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. He remembers overhearing a conversation she was having with a family friend about where he would go if she died. 

“That’s when I knew it was serious,” he says.

Doctors saved her life, and it’s something he’ll never forget. But it wasn’t until his time at Rutgers that he finally had the confidence to think he could succeed in medical school.

Martin went on to attend Harvard Medical School and Harvard Kennedy School of Government as well as serving as chief resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was also a fellow at the White House in the Office of the Vice President and today, he’s an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston..

He is most at home in the emergency room at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he works as an emergency medical specialist. For him, the ER is the first line of defense for meeting the community’s health needs. Growing up in Neptune, the ER “was where poor folks got their care,” he says. His mom worked two jobs and when she got off work at 8 p.m. there was no pediatrician open. “When I was sick as a kid we always went to the emergency room,” he says.

While at Harvard, he also pursued a degree from the Kennedy School of Government, because of the huge role he feels that politics play in our health care system and especially in bringing care to impoverished communities. And since then he’s taken numerous steps to bridge the gap.

Addiction, for example, became an important issue for Martin, ever since a patient he encountered in his first week as an internist. She was a mom of two who had recently gotten surgery because she broke her ankle falling down the stairs at her child’s daycare, he says. Prescribed oxycodone, she feared she was becoming addicted and needed help. But at the time, there was nothing the ER could do. 

“I remember that look in her eyes when we had to turn her away,” he says. 

Martin has worked to change protocol at his hospital and others throughout the nation so they can be better set up to treat opioid addiction. He’s the founder of GetWaivered, an organization that trains doctors throughout the country to use evidence-based medicine to manage opioid addiction. In the U.S. doctors need what’s called a DEA X waiver to be able to prescribe buprenorphine to opioid-addicted patients. That means that currently only about 1% of all emergency room doctors nationwide have the waiver and without it, it’s impossible to help patients when they need it the most.

Shuhan He, MD, an internist with Martin at Massachusetts General Hospital who also works on the GetWaivered program, says Martin has a particular trait that helps him be successful. 

“He’s a doer and when he sees a problem, he’s gonna try and fix it.”

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

Physicians nationwide will be challenged by the “unwinding” of the federal public health emergency declared for the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.

A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.

The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.

The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.

Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.

The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”

The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
 

Patients’ questions

Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).

“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”

Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.

For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.

“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.

States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.

The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.

In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
 

The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients

The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.

After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.

But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).

People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.

“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
 

Future FDA actions

Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.

But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.

The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.

The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.

The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.

“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.

Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.

“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”

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

Physicians nationwide will be challenged by the “unwinding” of the federal public health emergency declared for the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.

A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.

The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.

The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.

Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.

The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”

The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
 

Patients’ questions

Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).

“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”

Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.

For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.

“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.

States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.

The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.

In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
 

The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients

The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.

After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.

But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).

People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.

“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
 

Future FDA actions

Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.

But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.

The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.

The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.

The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.

“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.

Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.

“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”

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

Physicians nationwide will be challenged by the “unwinding” of the federal public health emergency declared for the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.

A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.

The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.

The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.

Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.

The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”

The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
 

Patients’ questions

Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).

“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”

Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.

For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.

“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.

States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.

The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.

In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
 

The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients

The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.

After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.

But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).

People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.

“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
 

Future FDA actions

Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.

But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.

The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.

The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.

The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.

“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.

Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.

“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”

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

Pregnant and scared, Natasha Valle went to a Tennova Healthcare hospital, Clarksville, Tenn., in January 2021 because she was bleeding. She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.

In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.

“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.

The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.

This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.

“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.

In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”

Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.

A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.

Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.

The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.

Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.

“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”

Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.

But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.

“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
 

For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”

Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.

Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.

Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.

These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.

“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”

Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”

The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.

Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.

Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.

“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
 

“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”

Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.

It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.

“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”

Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.

The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.

There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.

Private equity can make millions in the gap.

For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.

Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.

American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Pregnant and scared, Natasha Valle went to a Tennova Healthcare hospital, Clarksville, Tenn., in January 2021 because she was bleeding. She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.

In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.

“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.

The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.

This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.

“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.

In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”

Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.

A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.

Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.

The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.

Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.

“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”

Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.

But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.

“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
 

For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”

Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.

Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.

Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.

These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.

“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”

Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”

The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.

Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.

Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.

“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
 

“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”

Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.

It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.

“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”

Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.

The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.

There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.

Private equity can make millions in the gap.

For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.

Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.

American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Pregnant and scared, Natasha Valle went to a Tennova Healthcare hospital, Clarksville, Tenn., in January 2021 because she was bleeding. She didn’t know much about miscarriage, but this seemed like one.

In the emergency department, she was examined then sent home, she said. She went back when her cramping became excruciating. Then home again. It ultimately took three trips to the ED on 3 consecutive days, generating three separate bills, before she saw a doctor who looked at her blood work and confirmed her fears.

“At the time I wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I need to see a doctor,’ ” Ms. Valle recalled. “But when you think about it, it’s like, ‘Well, dang – why didn’t I see a doctor?’ ” It’s unclear whether the repeat visits were due to delays in seeing a physician, but the experience worried her. And she’s still paying the bills.

The hospital declined to discuss Ms. Valle’s care, citing patient privacy. But 17 months before her 3-day ordeal, Tennova had outsourced its emergency departments to American Physician Partners, a medical staffing company owned by private equity investors. APP employs fewer doctors in its EDs as one of its cost-saving initiatives to increase earnings, according to a confidential company document obtained by KHN and NPR.

This staffing strategy has permeated hospitals, and particularly emergency departments, that seek to reduce their top expense: physician labor. While diagnosing and treating patients was once their domain, doctors are increasingly being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as “midlevel practitioners,” who can perform many of the same duties and generate much of the same revenue for less than half of the pay.

“APP has numerous cost saving initiatives underway as part of the Company’s continual focus on cost optimization,” the document says, including a “shift of staffing” between doctors and midlevel practitioners.

In a statement to KHN, American Physician Partners said this strategy is a way to ensure all EDs remain fully staffed, calling it a “blended model” that allows doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants “to provide care to their fullest potential.”

Critics of this strategy say the quest to save money results in treatment meted out by someone with far less training than a physician, leaving patients vulnerable to misdiagnoses, higher medical bills, and inadequate care. And these fears are bolstered by evidence that suggests dropping doctors from EDs may not be good for patients.

A working paper, published in October by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed roughly 1.1 million visits to 44 EDs throughout the Veterans Health Administration, where nurse practitioners can treat patients without oversight from doctors.

Researchers found that treatment by a nurse practitioner resulted on average in a 7% increase in cost of care and an 11% increase in length of stay, extending patients’ time in the ED by minutes for minor visits and hours for longer ones. These gaps widened among patients with more severe diagnoses, the study said, but could be somewhat mitigated by nurse practitioners with more experience.

The study also found that ED patients treated by a nurse practitioner were 20% more likely to be readmitted to the hospital for a preventable reason within 30 days, although the overall risk of readmission remained very small.

Yiqun Chen, PhD, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthored the study, said these findings are not an indictment of nurse practitioners in the ED. Instead, she said, she hopes the study will guide how to best deploy nurse practitioners: in treatment of simpler patients or circumstances when no doctor is available.

“It’s not just a simple question of if we can substitute physicians with nurse practitioners or not,” Dr. Chen said. “It depends on how we use them. If we just use them as independent providers, especially ... for relatively complicated patients, it doesn’t seem to be a very good use.”

Dr. Chen’s research echoes smaller studies, like one from The Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute that found nonphysician practitioners in EDs were associated with a 5.3% increase in imaging, which could unnecessarily increase bills for patients. Separately, a study at the Hattiesburg Clinic in Mississippi found that midlevel practitioners in primary care – not in the emergency department – increased the out-of-pocket costs to patients while also leading to worse performance on 9 of 10 quality-of-care metrics, including cancer screenings and vaccination rates.

But definitive evidence remains elusive that replacing ER doctors with nonphysicians has a negative impact on patients, said Cameron Gettel, MD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Private equity investment and the use of midlevel practitioners rose in lockstep in the ED, Dr. Gettel said, and in the absence of game-changing research, the pattern will likely continue.

“Worse patient outcomes haven’t really been shown across the board,” he said. “And I think until that is shown, then they will continue to play an increasing role.”
 

For private equity, dropping ED docs is a “simple equation”

Private equity companies pool money from wealthy investors to buy their way into various industries, often slashing spending and seeking to flip businesses in 3 to 7 years. While this business model is a proven moneymaker on Wall Street, it raises concerns in health care, where critics worry the pressure to turn big profits will influence life-or-death decisions that were once left solely to medical professionals.

Nearly $1 trillion in private equity funds have gone into almost 8,000 health care transactions over the past decade, according to industry tracker PitchBook, including buying into medical staffing companies that many hospitals hire to manage their emergency departments.

Two firms dominate the ED staffing industry: TeamHealth, bought by private equity firm Blackstone in 2016, and Envision Healthcare, bought by KKR in 2018. Trying to undercut these staffing giants is American Physician Partners, a rapidly expanding company that runs EDs in at least 17 states and is 50% owned by private equity firm BBH Capital Partners.

These staffing companies have been among the most aggressive in replacing doctors to cut costs, said Robert McNamara, MD, a founder of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.

“It’s a relatively simple equation,” Dr. McNamara said. “Their No. 1 expense is the board-certified emergency physician. So they are going to want to keep that expense as low as possible.”

Not everyone sees the trend of private equity in ED staffing in a negative light. Jennifer Orozco, president of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which represents physician assistants, said even if the change – to use more nonphysician providers – is driven by the staffing firms’ desire to make more money, patients are still well served by a team approach that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

“Though I see that shift, it’s not about profits at the end of the day,” Ms. Orozco said. “It’s about the patient.”

The “shift” is nearly invisible to patients because hospitals rarely promote branding from their ED staffing firms and there is little public documentation of private equity investments.

Arthur Smolensky, MD, a Tennessee emergency medicine specialist attempting to measure private equity’s intrusion into EDs, said his review of hospital job postings and employment contracts in 14 major metropolitan areas found that 43% of ED patients were seen in EDs staffed by companies with nonphysician owners, nearly all of whom are private equity investors.

Dr. Smolensky hopes to publish his full study, expanding to 55 metro areas, later this year. But this research will merely quantify what many doctors already know: The ED has changed. Demoralized by an increased focus on profit, and wary of a looming surplus of emergency medicine residents because there are fewer jobs to fill, many experienced doctors are leaving the ED on their own, he said.

“Most of us didn’t go into medicine to supervise an army of people that are not as well trained as we are,” Dr. Smolensky said. “We want to take care of patients.”
 

“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER”

Joshua Allen, a nurse practitioner at a small Kentucky hospital, snaked a rubber hose through a rack of pork ribs to practice inserting a chest tube to fix a collapsed lung.

It was 2020, and American Physician Partners was restructuring the ED where Mr. Allen worked, reducing shifts from two doctors to one. Once Mr. Allen had placed 10 tubes under a doctor’s supervision, he would be allowed to do it on his own.

“I guess we’re the first guinea pigs for our ER,” he said. “If we do have a major trauma and multiple victims come in, there’s only one doctor there. ... We need to be prepared.”

Mr. Allen is one of many midlevel practitioners finding work in emergency departments. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are among the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Generally, they have master’s degrees and receive several years of specialized schooling but have significantly less training than doctors. Many are permitted to diagnose patients and prescribe medication with little or no supervision from a doctor, although limitations vary by state.

The Neiman Institute found that the share of ED visits in which a midlevel practitioner was the main clinician increased by more than 172% between 2005 and 2020. Another study, in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, reported that if trends continue there may be equal numbers of midlevel practitioners and doctors in EDs by 2030.

There is little mystery as to why. Federal data shows emergency medicine doctors are paid about $310,000 a year on average, while nurse practitioners and physician assistants earn less than $120,000. Generally, hospitals can bill for care by a midlevel practitioner at 85% the rate of a doctor while paying them less than half as much.

Private equity can make millions in the gap.

For example, Envision once encouraged EDs to employ “the least expensive resource” and treat up to 35% of patients with midlevel practitioners, according to a 2017 PowerPoint presentation. The presentation drew scorn on social media and disappeared from Envision’s website.

Envision declined a request for a phone interview. In a written statement to KHN, spokesperson Aliese Polk said the company does not direct its physician leaders on how to care for patients and called the presentation a “concept guide” that does not represent current views.

American Physician Partners touted roughly the same staffing strategy in 2021 in response to the No Surprises Act, which threatened the company’s profits by outlawing surprise medical bills. In its confidential pitch to lenders, the company estimated it could cut almost $6 million by shifting more staffing from physicians to midlevel practitioners.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Both public and private health plans score poorly when it comes to providing access to autoimmune medication, according to a report commissioned by the Autoimmune Association and Let My Doctors Decide, a national partnership of health care professionals. The analysis, published Jan. 26, found that 75% of insurers in the United States have policies that can limit coverage for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.

“Choice among health plans is a hallmark of the American health insurance system, yet this analysis shows that people living with autoimmune conditions have few, if any, coverage choices that do not involve significant to severe access restrictions,” the authors wrote.

The study looked at three common utilization management policies by health plans that can limit coverage of certain medications: step therapy, formulary/tier placement, and prior authorization. To compare health plans, researchers weighted these policies using a point system. Each medication indicated for each condition was given a score of 0-4 based on access restrictions in a health plan. If a plan used step therapy, it received one point, and requiring prior authorization added an additional point. They also added points based on where a drug appeared on a plan’s formulary. A lower total score meant fewer access barriers. The numbers were then added, and each health plan received a grade of A, B, C, or F based on their average score. The datasets and analysis were provided and performed by the data analytics firm MMIT.

Nearly 9 in 10 Medicare plans received a C or worse for coverage of medication received via mail order or the pharmacy. In commercial plans, the majority of plans scored Cs or Fs for six of the seven conditions, excluding lupus nephritis, where 67% of all commercial health plans scored a B for access to these medications.

Physician-administered medications tended to receive poorer coverage than drugs received via pharmacy. Across all conditions, 65% of Medicare Advantage plans scored an F for physician-administered medication access. For both psoriasis and multiple sclerosis, at least 80% of Medicare plans earned failing scores because of these restrictions. Coverage was poorer on both commercial and health exchange plans, where across all conditions, 83% achieved failing scores. Two exceptions were the Southern and Northern California PPO plans by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Out of the largest 25 health plans in the United States, these two plans earned As in coverage for physician-administered medications across all seven autoimmune conditions.

The report shows “a growing disconnect between science and health insurance benefit designs that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s,” Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. Insurers originally designed these benefits to prevent excessive utilization in a population of mostly acutely ill patients, he said, whereas now, 90% of healthcare spending is linked to chronic conditions. For these patients, research shows that incentivizing patients to adhere to medications results in fewer hospitalizations and, therefore, more cost savings, Thorpe noted. These plans also do not consider that there is no average patient, he said, and healthcare providers should be able to match each patient to the best treatment option for them rather than trying out other less expensive medications first. “To the extent that physicians can have the flexibility to provide medications and treatments to patients that are going to have the best clinical response, that’s better outcomes at lower cost,” Dr. Thorpe said. While research shows heterogeneity in patient outcomes with different medication, “benefit designs from the past just don’t recognize that.”

Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans nor Pharmaceutical Care Management Association responded to a request for comment.

Quardricos Driskell, executive director of Let My Doctors Decide and vice president of government relations and public policy at the Autoimmune Association, hopes the study will spur action by policy makers and health plans to improve access to medications for the people who need them. Another larger point of the report is to “uphold the sanctity of protecting the doctor and patient relationship,” he said in an interview, adding “that decisions fundamentally need to be made not by insurance plans or middleman pharmacy benefit managers, but by the provider and patient.”

Mr. Driskell and Dr. Thorpe reported no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Both public and private health plans score poorly when it comes to providing access to autoimmune medication, according to a report commissioned by the Autoimmune Association and Let My Doctors Decide, a national partnership of health care professionals. The analysis, published Jan. 26, found that 75% of insurers in the United States have policies that can limit coverage for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.

“Choice among health plans is a hallmark of the American health insurance system, yet this analysis shows that people living with autoimmune conditions have few, if any, coverage choices that do not involve significant to severe access restrictions,” the authors wrote.

The study looked at three common utilization management policies by health plans that can limit coverage of certain medications: step therapy, formulary/tier placement, and prior authorization. To compare health plans, researchers weighted these policies using a point system. Each medication indicated for each condition was given a score of 0-4 based on access restrictions in a health plan. If a plan used step therapy, it received one point, and requiring prior authorization added an additional point. They also added points based on where a drug appeared on a plan’s formulary. A lower total score meant fewer access barriers. The numbers were then added, and each health plan received a grade of A, B, C, or F based on their average score. The datasets and analysis were provided and performed by the data analytics firm MMIT.

Nearly 9 in 10 Medicare plans received a C or worse for coverage of medication received via mail order or the pharmacy. In commercial plans, the majority of plans scored Cs or Fs for six of the seven conditions, excluding lupus nephritis, where 67% of all commercial health plans scored a B for access to these medications.

Physician-administered medications tended to receive poorer coverage than drugs received via pharmacy. Across all conditions, 65% of Medicare Advantage plans scored an F for physician-administered medication access. For both psoriasis and multiple sclerosis, at least 80% of Medicare plans earned failing scores because of these restrictions. Coverage was poorer on both commercial and health exchange plans, where across all conditions, 83% achieved failing scores. Two exceptions were the Southern and Northern California PPO plans by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Out of the largest 25 health plans in the United States, these two plans earned As in coverage for physician-administered medications across all seven autoimmune conditions.

The report shows “a growing disconnect between science and health insurance benefit designs that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s,” Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. Insurers originally designed these benefits to prevent excessive utilization in a population of mostly acutely ill patients, he said, whereas now, 90% of healthcare spending is linked to chronic conditions. For these patients, research shows that incentivizing patients to adhere to medications results in fewer hospitalizations and, therefore, more cost savings, Thorpe noted. These plans also do not consider that there is no average patient, he said, and healthcare providers should be able to match each patient to the best treatment option for them rather than trying out other less expensive medications first. “To the extent that physicians can have the flexibility to provide medications and treatments to patients that are going to have the best clinical response, that’s better outcomes at lower cost,” Dr. Thorpe said. While research shows heterogeneity in patient outcomes with different medication, “benefit designs from the past just don’t recognize that.”

Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans nor Pharmaceutical Care Management Association responded to a request for comment.

Quardricos Driskell, executive director of Let My Doctors Decide and vice president of government relations and public policy at the Autoimmune Association, hopes the study will spur action by policy makers and health plans to improve access to medications for the people who need them. Another larger point of the report is to “uphold the sanctity of protecting the doctor and patient relationship,” he said in an interview, adding “that decisions fundamentally need to be made not by insurance plans or middleman pharmacy benefit managers, but by the provider and patient.”

Mr. Driskell and Dr. Thorpe reported no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Both public and private health plans score poorly when it comes to providing access to autoimmune medication, according to a report commissioned by the Autoimmune Association and Let My Doctors Decide, a national partnership of health care professionals. The analysis, published Jan. 26, found that 75% of insurers in the United States have policies that can limit coverage for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.

“Choice among health plans is a hallmark of the American health insurance system, yet this analysis shows that people living with autoimmune conditions have few, if any, coverage choices that do not involve significant to severe access restrictions,” the authors wrote.

The study looked at three common utilization management policies by health plans that can limit coverage of certain medications: step therapy, formulary/tier placement, and prior authorization. To compare health plans, researchers weighted these policies using a point system. Each medication indicated for each condition was given a score of 0-4 based on access restrictions in a health plan. If a plan used step therapy, it received one point, and requiring prior authorization added an additional point. They also added points based on where a drug appeared on a plan’s formulary. A lower total score meant fewer access barriers. The numbers were then added, and each health plan received a grade of A, B, C, or F based on their average score. The datasets and analysis were provided and performed by the data analytics firm MMIT.

Nearly 9 in 10 Medicare plans received a C or worse for coverage of medication received via mail order or the pharmacy. In commercial plans, the majority of plans scored Cs or Fs for six of the seven conditions, excluding lupus nephritis, where 67% of all commercial health plans scored a B for access to these medications.

Physician-administered medications tended to receive poorer coverage than drugs received via pharmacy. Across all conditions, 65% of Medicare Advantage plans scored an F for physician-administered medication access. For both psoriasis and multiple sclerosis, at least 80% of Medicare plans earned failing scores because of these restrictions. Coverage was poorer on both commercial and health exchange plans, where across all conditions, 83% achieved failing scores. Two exceptions were the Southern and Northern California PPO plans by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Out of the largest 25 health plans in the United States, these two plans earned As in coverage for physician-administered medications across all seven autoimmune conditions.

The report shows “a growing disconnect between science and health insurance benefit designs that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s,” Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. Insurers originally designed these benefits to prevent excessive utilization in a population of mostly acutely ill patients, he said, whereas now, 90% of healthcare spending is linked to chronic conditions. For these patients, research shows that incentivizing patients to adhere to medications results in fewer hospitalizations and, therefore, more cost savings, Thorpe noted. These plans also do not consider that there is no average patient, he said, and healthcare providers should be able to match each patient to the best treatment option for them rather than trying out other less expensive medications first. “To the extent that physicians can have the flexibility to provide medications and treatments to patients that are going to have the best clinical response, that’s better outcomes at lower cost,” Dr. Thorpe said. While research shows heterogeneity in patient outcomes with different medication, “benefit designs from the past just don’t recognize that.”

Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans nor Pharmaceutical Care Management Association responded to a request for comment.

Quardricos Driskell, executive director of Let My Doctors Decide and vice president of government relations and public policy at the Autoimmune Association, hopes the study will spur action by policy makers and health plans to improve access to medications for the people who need them. Another larger point of the report is to “uphold the sanctity of protecting the doctor and patient relationship,” he said in an interview, adding “that decisions fundamentally need to be made not by insurance plans or middleman pharmacy benefit managers, but by the provider and patient.”

Mr. Driskell and Dr. Thorpe reported no relevant financial relationships. 

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

The rising national suicide rate is being driven by increases among younger people and among people of color, according to a new report. 

Significant increases in suicide occurred among Native American, Black and Hispanic people, with a startling rise among young Black people. Meanwhile, the rate of suicide among older people declined between 2018 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.

In 2021, 48,183 people died by suicide in the United States, which equates to a suicide rate of 14.1 per 100,000 people. That level equals the 2018 suicide rate, which had seen a peak that was followed by declines associated with the pandemic.

Experts said rebounding suicide rates are common following times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide declines have also occurred during times of war and natural disaster, when psychological resilience tends to increase and people work together to overcome shared adversity.

“That will wane, and then you will see rebounding in suicide rates. That is, in fact, what we feared would happen. And it has happened, at least in 2021,” Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told the New York Times.

The new CDC report found that the largest increase was among Black people aged 10-24 years, who experienced a 36.6% increase in suicide rate between 2018 and 2021. While Black people experience mental illness at the same rates as that of the general population, historically they have disproportionately limited access to mental health care, according to the American Psychiatric Association.

CDC report authors noted that some of the biggest increases in suicide rates occurred among groups most affected by the pandemic. 

From 2018 to 2021, the suicide rate for people aged 25-44 increased among Native Americans by 33.7% and among Black people by 22.9%. Suicide increased among multiracial people by 20.6% and among Hispanic or Latinx people by 19.4%. Among White people of all ages, the suicide rate declined or remained steady.

“As the nation continues to respond to the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining vigilant in prevention efforts is critical, especially among disproportionately affected populations where longer-term impacts might compound preexisting inequities in suicide risk,” the CDC researchers wrote.

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

The rising national suicide rate is being driven by increases among younger people and among people of color, according to a new report. 

Significant increases in suicide occurred among Native American, Black and Hispanic people, with a startling rise among young Black people. Meanwhile, the rate of suicide among older people declined between 2018 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.

In 2021, 48,183 people died by suicide in the United States, which equates to a suicide rate of 14.1 per 100,000 people. That level equals the 2018 suicide rate, which had seen a peak that was followed by declines associated with the pandemic.

Experts said rebounding suicide rates are common following times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide declines have also occurred during times of war and natural disaster, when psychological resilience tends to increase and people work together to overcome shared adversity.

“That will wane, and then you will see rebounding in suicide rates. That is, in fact, what we feared would happen. And it has happened, at least in 2021,” Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told the New York Times.

The new CDC report found that the largest increase was among Black people aged 10-24 years, who experienced a 36.6% increase in suicide rate between 2018 and 2021. While Black people experience mental illness at the same rates as that of the general population, historically they have disproportionately limited access to mental health care, according to the American Psychiatric Association.

CDC report authors noted that some of the biggest increases in suicide rates occurred among groups most affected by the pandemic. 

From 2018 to 2021, the suicide rate for people aged 25-44 increased among Native Americans by 33.7% and among Black people by 22.9%. Suicide increased among multiracial people by 20.6% and among Hispanic or Latinx people by 19.4%. Among White people of all ages, the suicide rate declined or remained steady.

“As the nation continues to respond to the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining vigilant in prevention efforts is critical, especially among disproportionately affected populations where longer-term impacts might compound preexisting inequities in suicide risk,” the CDC researchers wrote.

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

The rising national suicide rate is being driven by increases among younger people and among people of color, according to a new report. 

Significant increases in suicide occurred among Native American, Black and Hispanic people, with a startling rise among young Black people. Meanwhile, the rate of suicide among older people declined between 2018 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.

In 2021, 48,183 people died by suicide in the United States, which equates to a suicide rate of 14.1 per 100,000 people. That level equals the 2018 suicide rate, which had seen a peak that was followed by declines associated with the pandemic.

Experts said rebounding suicide rates are common following times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide declines have also occurred during times of war and natural disaster, when psychological resilience tends to increase and people work together to overcome shared adversity.

“That will wane, and then you will see rebounding in suicide rates. That is, in fact, what we feared would happen. And it has happened, at least in 2021,” Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told the New York Times.

The new CDC report found that the largest increase was among Black people aged 10-24 years, who experienced a 36.6% increase in suicide rate between 2018 and 2021. While Black people experience mental illness at the same rates as that of the general population, historically they have disproportionately limited access to mental health care, according to the American Psychiatric Association.

CDC report authors noted that some of the biggest increases in suicide rates occurred among groups most affected by the pandemic. 

From 2018 to 2021, the suicide rate for people aged 25-44 increased among Native Americans by 33.7% and among Black people by 22.9%. Suicide increased among multiracial people by 20.6% and among Hispanic or Latinx people by 19.4%. Among White people of all ages, the suicide rate declined or remained steady.

“As the nation continues to respond to the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining vigilant in prevention efforts is critical, especially among disproportionately affected populations where longer-term impacts might compound preexisting inequities in suicide risk,” the CDC researchers wrote.

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

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis – an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue, and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged Mr. McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought Mr. McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Mr. Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied.

Mr. Opperman then complained about Mr. McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Mr. Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America’s leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed Mr. McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering Mr. McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after Mr. McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of Mr. McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was Mr. McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with Mr. McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what Mr. McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Ms. Kavanaugh said of Mr. McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”
 

The same meal every day

Now 31, Mr. McNaughton grew up in State College, Pa., just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, Mr. McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When Mr. McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. Mr. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

Mr. McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For 2 years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch, and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring Mr. McNaughton to Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Dr. Loftus in May 2015, Mr. McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. Mr. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Dr. Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the 5-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Dr. Loftus looked at Mr. McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if Mr. McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

Mr. McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Dr. Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring Mr. McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Dr. Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection, and fatigue. Mr. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Dr. Loftus and Mr. McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

Mr. McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Dr. Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Dr. Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Dr. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctors’ expertise and experience with the drug. “In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Dr. Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose – to reduce inflammation in the large intestine – but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Dr. Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate – as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in Mr. McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to 3 or 4. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” Mr. McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, Mr. McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. Mr. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, Mr. McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton would be covered by United.

Mr. McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

Mr. McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, Mr. McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When Mr. McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.


 

Misrepresentations

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive Mr. McNaughton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Ms. Light and Mr. McNaughton’s father, David McNaughton, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Ms. Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” Mr. McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, Mr. McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Ms. Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of Mr. McNaughton’s care, overseen by Ms. Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the Mr. McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Ms. Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed Mr. McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice.

MRIoA sent the case to Vikas Pabby, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of Mr. McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Dr. Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021, report, Dr. Pabby concluded Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as Mr. McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. Mr. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Mr. Opperman and Ms. Kavanaugh agreed that if Mr. McNaughton were to appeal Dr. Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Mr. Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Mr. Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Dr. Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Dr. Loftus, the Mayo physician treating Mr. McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually occurs only after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Ms. Kavanaugh called Dr. Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Dr. Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by Mr. McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

Mr. McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Dr. Loftus told Dr. Pabby that Mr. McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Dr. Loftus, Dr. Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Dr. Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Mr. Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Mr. Opperman claimed that Dr. Loftus and Dr. Pabby had agreed that Mr. McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Dr. Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down to a normal dose range.” Mr. Opperman wrote that United would cover Mr. McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Mr. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Dr. Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to Mr. McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper – saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year – than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Dr. Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Dr. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Dr. Loftus wrote that changing Mr. McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Dr. Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by Mr. McNaughton’s lawyers, Ms. Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Ms. Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Mr. Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Dr. Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” Mr. McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”


 

A buried report

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Nady Cates, MD, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Dr. Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Dr. Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Dr. Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn’t a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case.

Dr. Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that Mr. McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Dr. Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Dr. Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Dr. Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Dr. Cates was looking at Mr. McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Dr. Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Nitin Kumar, MD, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Dr. Kumar discussed the harm that Mr. McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Dr. Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh learned of Dr. Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Dr. Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Ms. Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Dr. Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Dr. Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Dr. Pabby again rejected Mr. McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” Mr. McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Dr. Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Ms. Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting Mr. McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Dr. Pabby for review.

Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that Mr. McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Ms. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Ms. Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Dr. Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Dr. Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to Mr. McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan M. Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Mr. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Ms. Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Mr. Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Dr. Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.
 

A sense of hopelessness

When Mr. McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous 6 years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with Mr. McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, Mr. McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for Mr. McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” Mr. McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

Mr. McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

Mr. McNaughton and his parents talked about his possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Dr. Loftus connected Mr. McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, PsyD, said Mr. McNaughton was not an unusual case. About one in three patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of Mr. McNaughton, Dr. Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment, and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Dr. Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms Mr. McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed Mr. McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would pay only for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, Mr. McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported Mr. McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to Mr. McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, Mr. McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring Mr. McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Dr. Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.
 

The cost of treatment

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the United States is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like Mr. McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing Mr. McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of Mr. McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Mr. Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on paying only for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for Mr. McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on Mr. McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Mr. Opperman notified Mr. Truxal and a United lawyer that Mr. McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Ms. Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on Mr. McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing Mr. McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Ms. Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than 2 decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Ms. Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.
 

‘Betrayed’

Mr. McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting Mr. McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

Mr. McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told Mr. McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between Mr. McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for Mr. McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give – with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Ms. Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Ms. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services web page, and has a university phone number, a university address, and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Ms. Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Ms. Light said. Ms. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress, and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

Mr. McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to re-enroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis – an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue, and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged Mr. McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought Mr. McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Mr. Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied.

Mr. Opperman then complained about Mr. McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Mr. Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America’s leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed Mr. McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering Mr. McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after Mr. McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of Mr. McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was Mr. McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with Mr. McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what Mr. McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Ms. Kavanaugh said of Mr. McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”
 

The same meal every day

Now 31, Mr. McNaughton grew up in State College, Pa., just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, Mr. McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When Mr. McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. Mr. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

Mr. McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For 2 years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch, and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring Mr. McNaughton to Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Dr. Loftus in May 2015, Mr. McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. Mr. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Dr. Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the 5-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Dr. Loftus looked at Mr. McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if Mr. McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

Mr. McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Dr. Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring Mr. McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Dr. Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection, and fatigue. Mr. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Dr. Loftus and Mr. McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

Mr. McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Dr. Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Dr. Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Dr. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctors’ expertise and experience with the drug. “In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Dr. Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose – to reduce inflammation in the large intestine – but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Dr. Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate – as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in Mr. McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to 3 or 4. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” Mr. McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, Mr. McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. Mr. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, Mr. McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton would be covered by United.

Mr. McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

Mr. McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, Mr. McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When Mr. McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.


 

Misrepresentations

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive Mr. McNaughton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Ms. Light and Mr. McNaughton’s father, David McNaughton, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Ms. Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” Mr. McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, Mr. McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Ms. Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of Mr. McNaughton’s care, overseen by Ms. Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the Mr. McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Ms. Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed Mr. McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice.

MRIoA sent the case to Vikas Pabby, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of Mr. McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Dr. Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021, report, Dr. Pabby concluded Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as Mr. McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. Mr. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Mr. Opperman and Ms. Kavanaugh agreed that if Mr. McNaughton were to appeal Dr. Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Mr. Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Mr. Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Dr. Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Dr. Loftus, the Mayo physician treating Mr. McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually occurs only after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Ms. Kavanaugh called Dr. Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Dr. Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by Mr. McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

Mr. McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Dr. Loftus told Dr. Pabby that Mr. McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Dr. Loftus, Dr. Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Dr. Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Mr. Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Mr. Opperman claimed that Dr. Loftus and Dr. Pabby had agreed that Mr. McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Dr. Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down to a normal dose range.” Mr. Opperman wrote that United would cover Mr. McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Mr. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Dr. Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to Mr. McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper – saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year – than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Dr. Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Dr. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Dr. Loftus wrote that changing Mr. McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Dr. Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by Mr. McNaughton’s lawyers, Ms. Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Ms. Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Mr. Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Dr. Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” Mr. McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”


 

A buried report

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Nady Cates, MD, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Dr. Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Dr. Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Dr. Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn’t a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case.

Dr. Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that Mr. McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Dr. Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Dr. Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Dr. Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Dr. Cates was looking at Mr. McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Dr. Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Nitin Kumar, MD, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Dr. Kumar discussed the harm that Mr. McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Dr. Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh learned of Dr. Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Dr. Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Ms. Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Dr. Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Dr. Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Dr. Pabby again rejected Mr. McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” Mr. McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Dr. Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Ms. Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting Mr. McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Dr. Pabby for review.

Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that Mr. McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Ms. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Ms. Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Dr. Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Dr. Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to Mr. McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan M. Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Mr. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Ms. Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Mr. Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Dr. Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.
 

A sense of hopelessness

When Mr. McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous 6 years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with Mr. McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, Mr. McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for Mr. McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” Mr. McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

Mr. McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

Mr. McNaughton and his parents talked about his possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Dr. Loftus connected Mr. McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, PsyD, said Mr. McNaughton was not an unusual case. About one in three patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of Mr. McNaughton, Dr. Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment, and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Dr. Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms Mr. McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed Mr. McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would pay only for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, Mr. McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported Mr. McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to Mr. McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, Mr. McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring Mr. McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Dr. Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.
 

The cost of treatment

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the United States is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like Mr. McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing Mr. McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of Mr. McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Mr. Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on paying only for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for Mr. McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on Mr. McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Mr. Opperman notified Mr. Truxal and a United lawyer that Mr. McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Ms. Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on Mr. McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing Mr. McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Ms. Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than 2 decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Ms. Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.
 

‘Betrayed’

Mr. McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting Mr. McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

Mr. McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told Mr. McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between Mr. McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for Mr. McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give – with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Ms. Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Ms. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services web page, and has a university phone number, a university address, and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Ms. Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Ms. Light said. Ms. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress, and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

Mr. McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to re-enroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis – an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue, and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged Mr. McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought Mr. McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Mr. Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied.

Mr. Opperman then complained about Mr. McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Mr. Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America’s leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed Mr. McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering Mr. McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after Mr. McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of Mr. McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was Mr. McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with Mr. McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what Mr. McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Ms. Kavanaugh said of Mr. McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”
 

The same meal every day

Now 31, Mr. McNaughton grew up in State College, Pa., just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, Mr. McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When Mr. McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. Mr. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

Mr. McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For 2 years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch, and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring Mr. McNaughton to Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Dr. Loftus in May 2015, Mr. McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. Mr. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Dr. Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the 5-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Dr. Loftus looked at Mr. McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if Mr. McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

Mr. McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Dr. Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring Mr. McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Dr. Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection, and fatigue. Mr. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Dr. Loftus and Mr. McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

Mr. McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Dr. Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Dr. Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Dr. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctors’ expertise and experience with the drug. “In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Dr. Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose – to reduce inflammation in the large intestine – but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Dr. Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate – as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in Mr. McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to 3 or 4. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” Mr. McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, Mr. McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. Mr. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, Mr. McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton would be covered by United.

Mr. McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

Mr. McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, Mr. McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When Mr. McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.


 

Misrepresentations

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive Mr. McNaughton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Ms. Light and Mr. McNaughton’s father, David McNaughton, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Ms. Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” Mr. McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, Mr. McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Ms. Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of Mr. McNaughton’s care, overseen by Ms. Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the Mr. McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Ms. Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed Mr. McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice.

MRIoA sent the case to Vikas Pabby, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of Mr. McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Dr. Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021, report, Dr. Pabby concluded Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as Mr. McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. Mr. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Mr. Opperman and Ms. Kavanaugh agreed that if Mr. McNaughton were to appeal Dr. Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Mr. Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Mr. Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Dr. Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Dr. Loftus, the Mayo physician treating Mr. McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually occurs only after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Ms. Kavanaugh called Dr. Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Dr. Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by Mr. McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

Mr. McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Dr. Loftus told Dr. Pabby that Mr. McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Dr. Loftus, Dr. Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Dr. Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Mr. Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Mr. Opperman claimed that Dr. Loftus and Dr. Pabby had agreed that Mr. McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Dr. Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down to a normal dose range.” Mr. Opperman wrote that United would cover Mr. McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Mr. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Dr. Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to Mr. McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper – saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year – than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Dr. Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Dr. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Dr. Loftus wrote that changing Mr. McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Dr. Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by Mr. McNaughton’s lawyers, Ms. Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Ms. Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Mr. Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Dr. Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” Mr. McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”


 

A buried report

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Nady Cates, MD, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Dr. Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Dr. Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Dr. Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn’t a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case.

Dr. Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that Mr. McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Dr. Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Dr. Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Dr. Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Dr. Cates was looking at Mr. McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Dr. Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Nitin Kumar, MD, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Dr. Kumar discussed the harm that Mr. McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Dr. Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh learned of Dr. Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Dr. Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Ms. Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Dr. Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Dr. Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Dr. Pabby again rejected Mr. McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” Mr. McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Dr. Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Ms. Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting Mr. McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Dr. Pabby for review.

Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that Mr. McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Ms. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Ms. Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Dr. Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Dr. Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to Mr. McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan M. Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Mr. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Ms. Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Mr. Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Dr. Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.
 

A sense of hopelessness

When Mr. McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous 6 years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with Mr. McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, Mr. McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for Mr. McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” Mr. McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

Mr. McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

Mr. McNaughton and his parents talked about his possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Dr. Loftus connected Mr. McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, PsyD, said Mr. McNaughton was not an unusual case. About one in three patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of Mr. McNaughton, Dr. Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment, and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Dr. Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms Mr. McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed Mr. McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would pay only for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, Mr. McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported Mr. McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to Mr. McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, Mr. McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring Mr. McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Dr. Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.
 

The cost of treatment

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the United States is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like Mr. McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing Mr. McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of Mr. McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Mr. Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on paying only for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for Mr. McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on Mr. McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Mr. Opperman notified Mr. Truxal and a United lawyer that Mr. McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Ms. Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on Mr. McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing Mr. McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Ms. Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than 2 decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Ms. Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.
 

‘Betrayed’

Mr. McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting Mr. McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

Mr. McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told Mr. McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between Mr. McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for Mr. McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give – with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Ms. Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Ms. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services web page, and has a university phone number, a university address, and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Ms. Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Ms. Light said. Ms. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress, and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

Mr. McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to re-enroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.