Practice Management

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized a new regulation requiring all hospitals participating in its programs to establish antimicrobial stewardship programs by March 30, 2020 (https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-20736). This welcome action was prompted by the rise in antimicrobial resistance; recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections with more than 35,000 deaths occur in the United States each year (https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/biggest-threats.html). CMS recommended that hospitals follow stewardship guidelines established by CDC, and other nationally recognized sources (https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/healthcare/pdfs/hospital-core-elements-H.pdf). Antibiotic stewardship includes optimization of several aspects of antimicrobial therapy including the drugs, formulations, doses, and dosing intervals. It also includes obtaining and updating local, regional, and national susceptibility data to provide regularly updated guidance regarding diagnosis and therapy.

How does this new CMS rule affect gastroenterologists and what role, if any, do we play in the epidemic of antibiotic resistance? The one infectious disease that gastroenterology effectively owns is Helicobacter pylori. Treatment of this disease has the potential to be involved in the epidemic of antimicrobial resistance. Current H. pylori therapies were largely devised without considering the principles of antibiotic stewardship. Therapies for H. pylori have largely been developed using trial and error, antimicrobial susceptibility testing is rarely available, and local and regional susceptibility are not readily available or updated. Current national treatment recommendations are most often based on comparisons of regimens grouping trials containing different drugs, doses, and durations of therapy performed in populations in whom resistance was neither assessed nor taken into account. Finally, some of the most highly recommended effective regimens inevitably contain at least one antibiotic unnecessary for the outcome, and inadvertently serve to increase population antibiotic exposure.

Clarithromycin-amoxicillin-PPI triple is still the most often used legacy therapy in the United States with an average cure rate of 70%. Recent guidelines have suggested adding a fourth drug, metronidazole to produce a quadruple therapy (concomitant therapy); the premise is that although both clarithromycin and metronidazole resistance are common, dual resistance is not. However, this benefit comes at the price of every patient receiving at least one unnecessary antibiotic, and patients with treatment failures receiving three unnecessary antibiotics. The cumulative effect given the approximately 2 million treatments annually is 10s of thousands of kilograms of inappropriate antibiotic use annually with the likely consequence of increasing resistance.

How to move forward? The CDC documents regarding antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals with limited resources (https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/core-elements/resource-limited.html) suggest creation and promotion of evidence-based treatment guidelines for common clinical syndromes, tracking of antibiotic dispensing using available data, setting of national targets for improvement, and description of resistance patterns to improve treatment guidelines and identify priority pathogens. The CDC documents require creation and promotion of evidence-and susceptibility-based treatment guidelines, tracking of antibiotic dispensing and setting targets for improvement (i.e., monitoring and reporting). It is important to note that the CMS rule focused on hospitals as hospitals have traditionally been the sites where local susceptibility data are obtained and gathered to provide the regional data and updated treatment guidelines used to treat most infectious diseases.

The Houston Consensus Conference on Testing for Helicobacter pylori Infection in the United States in 2017 had several recommendations that would effectively address the CMS rule and CDC recommendations. For example, statement 15: that empiric eradication therapy for H. pylori be based on region or population-specific antibiotic susceptibility data (Grade 1B); Statement 17: that validated diagnostic testing of stool or gastric mucosal biopsy by culture and susceptibility, or molecular analysis be universally available (Grade 1); Statement 18: that antibiotics that may be routinely evaluated for susceptibility include amoxicillin, clarithromycin, levofloxacin, metronidazole, and tetracycline. (Grade 2C); and Statement 19: that professional societies provide the research needed to support evidence-based reimbursement decisions for antibiotic susceptibility testing for H. pylori (Grade 1).

Organized gastroenterology needs to join with the infectious disease community to make H. pylori an infection of joint interest. Mass eradication of H. pylori worldwide offers the promise of elimination of gastric cancer. The CMS rule should ultimately result in significant changes in the approach of treating H. pylori infections that includes improved testing and availability and implementation of knowledge of local susceptibility and resistance patterns. Therapies that reliably cure H. pylori without unnecessary antibiotics need to be used whereas regimens that fail to reliably achieve high cure rates should be abandoned. We should consider establishing quality metrics related to appropriate diagnostic testing for both the initial infection as well as posttreatment evaluations. We must add our voice to advocate for hospitals and central laboratories to offer susceptibility testing locally or as a send out for clinicians to provide locally relevant antimicrobial therapy for H. pylori infections. The CMS rule provides both the impetus and the methods to move forward and deal with H. pylori like other infectious diseases.
 

Dr. Graham is a professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; Dr. El-Serag is chair of the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. Neither had conflicts of interest related to this comment.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized a new regulation requiring all hospitals participating in its programs to establish antimicrobial stewardship programs by March 30, 2020 (https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-20736). This welcome action was prompted by the rise in antimicrobial resistance; recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections with more than 35,000 deaths occur in the United States each year (https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/biggest-threats.html). CMS recommended that hospitals follow stewardship guidelines established by CDC, and other nationally recognized sources (https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/healthcare/pdfs/hospital-core-elements-H.pdf). Antibiotic stewardship includes optimization of several aspects of antimicrobial therapy including the drugs, formulations, doses, and dosing intervals. It also includes obtaining and updating local, regional, and national susceptibility data to provide regularly updated guidance regarding diagnosis and therapy.

How does this new CMS rule affect gastroenterologists and what role, if any, do we play in the epidemic of antibiotic resistance? The one infectious disease that gastroenterology effectively owns is Helicobacter pylori. Treatment of this disease has the potential to be involved in the epidemic of antimicrobial resistance. Current H. pylori therapies were largely devised without considering the principles of antibiotic stewardship. Therapies for H. pylori have largely been developed using trial and error, antimicrobial susceptibility testing is rarely available, and local and regional susceptibility are not readily available or updated. Current national treatment recommendations are most often based on comparisons of regimens grouping trials containing different drugs, doses, and durations of therapy performed in populations in whom resistance was neither assessed nor taken into account. Finally, some of the most highly recommended effective regimens inevitably contain at least one antibiotic unnecessary for the outcome, and inadvertently serve to increase population antibiotic exposure.

Clarithromycin-amoxicillin-PPI triple is still the most often used legacy therapy in the United States with an average cure rate of 70%. Recent guidelines have suggested adding a fourth drug, metronidazole to produce a quadruple therapy (concomitant therapy); the premise is that although both clarithromycin and metronidazole resistance are common, dual resistance is not. However, this benefit comes at the price of every patient receiving at least one unnecessary antibiotic, and patients with treatment failures receiving three unnecessary antibiotics. The cumulative effect given the approximately 2 million treatments annually is 10s of thousands of kilograms of inappropriate antibiotic use annually with the likely consequence of increasing resistance.

How to move forward? The CDC documents regarding antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals with limited resources (https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/core-elements/resource-limited.html) suggest creation and promotion of evidence-based treatment guidelines for common clinical syndromes, tracking of antibiotic dispensing using available data, setting of national targets for improvement, and description of resistance patterns to improve treatment guidelines and identify priority pathogens. The CDC documents require creation and promotion of evidence-and susceptibility-based treatment guidelines, tracking of antibiotic dispensing and setting targets for improvement (i.e., monitoring and reporting). It is important to note that the CMS rule focused on hospitals as hospitals have traditionally been the sites where local susceptibility data are obtained and gathered to provide the regional data and updated treatment guidelines used to treat most infectious diseases.

The Houston Consensus Conference on Testing for Helicobacter pylori Infection in the United States in 2017 had several recommendations that would effectively address the CMS rule and CDC recommendations. For example, statement 15: that empiric eradication therapy for H. pylori be based on region or population-specific antibiotic susceptibility data (Grade 1B); Statement 17: that validated diagnostic testing of stool or gastric mucosal biopsy by culture and susceptibility, or molecular analysis be universally available (Grade 1); Statement 18: that antibiotics that may be routinely evaluated for susceptibility include amoxicillin, clarithromycin, levofloxacin, metronidazole, and tetracycline. (Grade 2C); and Statement 19: that professional societies provide the research needed to support evidence-based reimbursement decisions for antibiotic susceptibility testing for H. pylori (Grade 1).

Organized gastroenterology needs to join with the infectious disease community to make H. pylori an infection of joint interest. Mass eradication of H. pylori worldwide offers the promise of elimination of gastric cancer. The CMS rule should ultimately result in significant changes in the approach of treating H. pylori infections that includes improved testing and availability and implementation of knowledge of local susceptibility and resistance patterns. Therapies that reliably cure H. pylori without unnecessary antibiotics need to be used whereas regimens that fail to reliably achieve high cure rates should be abandoned. We should consider establishing quality metrics related to appropriate diagnostic testing for both the initial infection as well as posttreatment evaluations. We must add our voice to advocate for hospitals and central laboratories to offer susceptibility testing locally or as a send out for clinicians to provide locally relevant antimicrobial therapy for H. pylori infections. The CMS rule provides both the impetus and the methods to move forward and deal with H. pylori like other infectious diseases.
 

Dr. Graham is a professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; Dr. El-Serag is chair of the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. Neither had conflicts of interest related to this comment.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized a new regulation requiring all hospitals participating in its programs to establish antimicrobial stewardship programs by March 30, 2020 (https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-20736). This welcome action was prompted by the rise in antimicrobial resistance; recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections with more than 35,000 deaths occur in the United States each year (https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/biggest-threats.html). CMS recommended that hospitals follow stewardship guidelines established by CDC, and other nationally recognized sources (https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/healthcare/pdfs/hospital-core-elements-H.pdf). Antibiotic stewardship includes optimization of several aspects of antimicrobial therapy including the drugs, formulations, doses, and dosing intervals. It also includes obtaining and updating local, regional, and national susceptibility data to provide regularly updated guidance regarding diagnosis and therapy.

How does this new CMS rule affect gastroenterologists and what role, if any, do we play in the epidemic of antibiotic resistance? The one infectious disease that gastroenterology effectively owns is Helicobacter pylori. Treatment of this disease has the potential to be involved in the epidemic of antimicrobial resistance. Current H. pylori therapies were largely devised without considering the principles of antibiotic stewardship. Therapies for H. pylori have largely been developed using trial and error, antimicrobial susceptibility testing is rarely available, and local and regional susceptibility are not readily available or updated. Current national treatment recommendations are most often based on comparisons of regimens grouping trials containing different drugs, doses, and durations of therapy performed in populations in whom resistance was neither assessed nor taken into account. Finally, some of the most highly recommended effective regimens inevitably contain at least one antibiotic unnecessary for the outcome, and inadvertently serve to increase population antibiotic exposure.

Clarithromycin-amoxicillin-PPI triple is still the most often used legacy therapy in the United States with an average cure rate of 70%. Recent guidelines have suggested adding a fourth drug, metronidazole to produce a quadruple therapy (concomitant therapy); the premise is that although both clarithromycin and metronidazole resistance are common, dual resistance is not. However, this benefit comes at the price of every patient receiving at least one unnecessary antibiotic, and patients with treatment failures receiving three unnecessary antibiotics. The cumulative effect given the approximately 2 million treatments annually is 10s of thousands of kilograms of inappropriate antibiotic use annually with the likely consequence of increasing resistance.

How to move forward? The CDC documents regarding antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals with limited resources (https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/core-elements/resource-limited.html) suggest creation and promotion of evidence-based treatment guidelines for common clinical syndromes, tracking of antibiotic dispensing using available data, setting of national targets for improvement, and description of resistance patterns to improve treatment guidelines and identify priority pathogens. The CDC documents require creation and promotion of evidence-and susceptibility-based treatment guidelines, tracking of antibiotic dispensing and setting targets for improvement (i.e., monitoring and reporting). It is important to note that the CMS rule focused on hospitals as hospitals have traditionally been the sites where local susceptibility data are obtained and gathered to provide the regional data and updated treatment guidelines used to treat most infectious diseases.

The Houston Consensus Conference on Testing for Helicobacter pylori Infection in the United States in 2017 had several recommendations that would effectively address the CMS rule and CDC recommendations. For example, statement 15: that empiric eradication therapy for H. pylori be based on region or population-specific antibiotic susceptibility data (Grade 1B); Statement 17: that validated diagnostic testing of stool or gastric mucosal biopsy by culture and susceptibility, or molecular analysis be universally available (Grade 1); Statement 18: that antibiotics that may be routinely evaluated for susceptibility include amoxicillin, clarithromycin, levofloxacin, metronidazole, and tetracycline. (Grade 2C); and Statement 19: that professional societies provide the research needed to support evidence-based reimbursement decisions for antibiotic susceptibility testing for H. pylori (Grade 1).

Organized gastroenterology needs to join with the infectious disease community to make H. pylori an infection of joint interest. Mass eradication of H. pylori worldwide offers the promise of elimination of gastric cancer. The CMS rule should ultimately result in significant changes in the approach of treating H. pylori infections that includes improved testing and availability and implementation of knowledge of local susceptibility and resistance patterns. Therapies that reliably cure H. pylori without unnecessary antibiotics need to be used whereas regimens that fail to reliably achieve high cure rates should be abandoned. We should consider establishing quality metrics related to appropriate diagnostic testing for both the initial infection as well as posttreatment evaluations. We must add our voice to advocate for hospitals and central laboratories to offer susceptibility testing locally or as a send out for clinicians to provide locally relevant antimicrobial therapy for H. pylori infections. The CMS rule provides both the impetus and the methods to move forward and deal with H. pylori like other infectious diseases.
 

Dr. Graham is a professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; Dr. El-Serag is chair of the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. Neither had conflicts of interest related to this comment.

Evaluation and Management (E/M) coding and guidelines are about to undergo the most significant changes since their implementation in the 1990s. For now, the changes are limited to new and established outpatient visits (CPT codes 99202-99205, 99211-99215) and will take place as of Jan. 1, 2021. Changes to all E/M codes are anticipated in the coming years.

The changes to the new and established office/outpatient codes will impact everyone in health care who assigns codes, manages health information, or pays claims including physicians and qualified health professionals, coders, health information managers, payers, health systems, and hospitals. The American Medical Association (AMA) has already released a preview of the CPT 2021 changes as well as free E/M education modules. They are planning to release more educational resources in the near future.
 

Why were changes needed?

The AMA developed the 2021 E/M changes in response to interest from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in reducing physician burden, simplifying documentation requirements, and making changes to payments for the E/M codes. CMS’s initial proposal was to collapse office visit E/M levels 2-5 to a single payment. While the new rates would have provided a modest increase for level 2 and 3 E/M codes, they would have cut reimbursement for the top-level codes by more than 50%. There was concern that these changes would adversely affect physicians caring for complex patients across medical specialties. There was an outcry from the physician community opposing CMS’s proposal, and the agency agreed to get more input from the public before moving forward.

The AMA worked with stakeholders, including the AGA and our sister GI societies, to create E/M guidelines that decrease documentation requirements while also continuing to differentiate payment based on complexity of care. CMS announced in the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) final rule that it would adopt the AMA’s proposal as well as their recommended relative values for 2021 CPT E/M codes. Of note, there will be modest payment increases for most office E/M codes beginning Jan. 1, 2021, which may benefit those who manage patients with complex conditions.

In sum, what are the 2021 E/M changes

While there will be many changes to office/outpatient E/M visits, the most significant are deletion of code 99201 (Level 1 new patient visit), addition of a 15-minute prolonged services code that can be reported with 99205 and 99215, and the following restructuring of office visit code selection:

1. Elimination of history and physical as elements for code selection: While obtaining a pertinent history and performing a relevant physical exam are clinically necessary and contribute to both time and medical decision making, these elements will not factor in to code selection. Instead, the code level will be determined solely by medical decision making or time.

2. Choice of using medical decision making (MDM) or total time as the basis of E/M level documentation:

• MDM. While there will still be three MDM subcomponents (number/complexity of problems, data, and risk), extensive edits were made to the ways in which these elements are defined and tallied.
• Time. The definition of time is now minimum time, not typical time or “face-to-face” time. Minimum time represents total physician/qualified health care professional time on the date of service. This redefinition of time allows Medicare to better recognize the work involved in non–face-to-face services like care coordination and record review. Of note, these definitions only apply when code selection is based on time and not MDM.

3. Modification of the criteria for MDM: The current CMS Table of Risk was used as a foundation for designing the revised required elements for MDM.

• Terms. Removed ambiguous terms (e.g., “mild”) and defined previously ambiguous concepts (e.g., “acute or chronic illness with systemic symptoms”).
• Definitions. Defined important terms, such as “independent historian.”
• Data elements. Re-defined the data elements to move away from simply adding up tasks to focusing on how those tasks affect the management of the patient (e.g., independent interpretation of a test performed by another provider and/or discussion of test interpretation with another physician).

CMS also plans to add a new Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) add-on code as of Jan. 1, 2021, that can be used to recognize additional resource costs that are inherent in treating complex patients.

• GPCX1 - Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious, or complex chronic condition. (Add-on code, list separately in addition to office/outpatient evaluation and management visit, new or established.).

GPC1X can be reported with all levels of E/M office/outpatient codes in which care of a patient’s single, serious, or complex chronic condition is the focus. CMS plans to reimburse GPC1X at 0.33 RVUs (about $12).
 

Who do these changes apply to?

The changes to the E/M office/outpatient CPT codes and guidelines for new and established patients apply to all traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, Medicaid, and all commercial payers. E/M HCPCS codes apply to Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans, and Medicaid only; commercial payers are not required to accept HCPCS codes.

What should you do?

Visit the AMA E/M Microsite; there you will find the AMA’s early release of the 2021 E/M coding and guideline changes, the AMA E/M learning module and future resources on the use of time and MDM that are expected to be released in March.

AMA E/M Microsite: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/cpt/cpt-evaluation-and-management

2021 E/M changes: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-office-prolonged-svs-code-changes.pdf

AMA E/M learning module: https://edhub.ama-assn.org/interactive/18057429

AMA MDM table: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-revised-mdm-grid.pdf

Connect with your coders and/or medical billing company to create a plan for training physicians and staff to ensure a smooth transition on Jan. 1, 2021.

Contact your Electronic Health Records (EHR) vendor to confirm the system your practice uses will be ready to implement the new E/M coding and guidelines changes on Jan. 1, 2021.

Run an analysis using the new E/M office/outpatient payment rates recommended by the AMA for 2021 (https://www.ama-assn.org/about/rvs-update-committee-ruc/ruc-recommendations-minutes-voting) for each of your practice’s contracted payers to determine if your practice will benefit from the new rates. While CMS has proposed to accept the AMA recommended rates, this will not be finalized until CMS publishes the 2021 proposed rule in early July 2020.

Once CMS confirms its decision, reach out to your payers to negotiate implementing the new E/M rates starting in 2021.

With changes this big, we encourage you to prepare early. Watch for more information on the 2021 E/M changes in Washington Insider and AGA eDigest.
 

Dr. Kuo is the AGA’s Advisor to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel and a member of the AGA Practice Management and Economics Committee’s (PMEC) Coverage and Reimbursement Subcommittee (CRS) and assistant professor of medicine and gastroenterology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Dr. Losurdo is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel, a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and Managing Partner and medical director of Illinois Gastroenterology Group, Elgin, Ill.; Dr. Mehta is the AGA’s advisor to the AMA RVS Update Committee (RUC), a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Dr. Garcia is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the AMA RUC, a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and assistant professor of medicine and gastroenterology at Stanford (Calif.) University. There were no conflicts of interest.

Evaluation and Management (E/M) coding and guidelines are about to undergo the most significant changes since their implementation in the 1990s. For now, the changes are limited to new and established outpatient visits (CPT codes 99202-99205, 99211-99215) and will take place as of Jan. 1, 2021. Changes to all E/M codes are anticipated in the coming years.

The changes to the new and established office/outpatient codes will impact everyone in health care who assigns codes, manages health information, or pays claims including physicians and qualified health professionals, coders, health information managers, payers, health systems, and hospitals. The American Medical Association (AMA) has already released a preview of the CPT 2021 changes as well as free E/M education modules. They are planning to release more educational resources in the near future.
 

Why were changes needed?

The AMA developed the 2021 E/M changes in response to interest from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in reducing physician burden, simplifying documentation requirements, and making changes to payments for the E/M codes. CMS’s initial proposal was to collapse office visit E/M levels 2-5 to a single payment. While the new rates would have provided a modest increase for level 2 and 3 E/M codes, they would have cut reimbursement for the top-level codes by more than 50%. There was concern that these changes would adversely affect physicians caring for complex patients across medical specialties. There was an outcry from the physician community opposing CMS’s proposal, and the agency agreed to get more input from the public before moving forward.

The AMA worked with stakeholders, including the AGA and our sister GI societies, to create E/M guidelines that decrease documentation requirements while also continuing to differentiate payment based on complexity of care. CMS announced in the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) final rule that it would adopt the AMA’s proposal as well as their recommended relative values for 2021 CPT E/M codes. Of note, there will be modest payment increases for most office E/M codes beginning Jan. 1, 2021, which may benefit those who manage patients with complex conditions.

In sum, what are the 2021 E/M changes

While there will be many changes to office/outpatient E/M visits, the most significant are deletion of code 99201 (Level 1 new patient visit), addition of a 15-minute prolonged services code that can be reported with 99205 and 99215, and the following restructuring of office visit code selection:

1. Elimination of history and physical as elements for code selection: While obtaining a pertinent history and performing a relevant physical exam are clinically necessary and contribute to both time and medical decision making, these elements will not factor in to code selection. Instead, the code level will be determined solely by medical decision making or time.

2. Choice of using medical decision making (MDM) or total time as the basis of E/M level documentation:

• MDM. While there will still be three MDM subcomponents (number/complexity of problems, data, and risk), extensive edits were made to the ways in which these elements are defined and tallied.
• Time. The definition of time is now minimum time, not typical time or “face-to-face” time. Minimum time represents total physician/qualified health care professional time on the date of service. This redefinition of time allows Medicare to better recognize the work involved in non–face-to-face services like care coordination and record review. Of note, these definitions only apply when code selection is based on time and not MDM.

3. Modification of the criteria for MDM: The current CMS Table of Risk was used as a foundation for designing the revised required elements for MDM.

• Terms. Removed ambiguous terms (e.g., “mild”) and defined previously ambiguous concepts (e.g., “acute or chronic illness with systemic symptoms”).
• Definitions. Defined important terms, such as “independent historian.”
• Data elements. Re-defined the data elements to move away from simply adding up tasks to focusing on how those tasks affect the management of the patient (e.g., independent interpretation of a test performed by another provider and/or discussion of test interpretation with another physician).

CMS also plans to add a new Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) add-on code as of Jan. 1, 2021, that can be used to recognize additional resource costs that are inherent in treating complex patients.

• GPCX1 - Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious, or complex chronic condition. (Add-on code, list separately in addition to office/outpatient evaluation and management visit, new or established.).

GPC1X can be reported with all levels of E/M office/outpatient codes in which care of a patient’s single, serious, or complex chronic condition is the focus. CMS plans to reimburse GPC1X at 0.33 RVUs (about $12).
 

Who do these changes apply to?

The changes to the E/M office/outpatient CPT codes and guidelines for new and established patients apply to all traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, Medicaid, and all commercial payers. E/M HCPCS codes apply to Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans, and Medicaid only; commercial payers are not required to accept HCPCS codes.

What should you do?

Visit the AMA E/M Microsite; there you will find the AMA’s early release of the 2021 E/M coding and guideline changes, the AMA E/M learning module and future resources on the use of time and MDM that are expected to be released in March.

AMA E/M Microsite: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/cpt/cpt-evaluation-and-management

2021 E/M changes: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-office-prolonged-svs-code-changes.pdf

AMA E/M learning module: https://edhub.ama-assn.org/interactive/18057429

AMA MDM table: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-revised-mdm-grid.pdf

Connect with your coders and/or medical billing company to create a plan for training physicians and staff to ensure a smooth transition on Jan. 1, 2021.

Contact your Electronic Health Records (EHR) vendor to confirm the system your practice uses will be ready to implement the new E/M coding and guidelines changes on Jan. 1, 2021.

Run an analysis using the new E/M office/outpatient payment rates recommended by the AMA for 2021 (https://www.ama-assn.org/about/rvs-update-committee-ruc/ruc-recommendations-minutes-voting) for each of your practice’s contracted payers to determine if your practice will benefit from the new rates. While CMS has proposed to accept the AMA recommended rates, this will not be finalized until CMS publishes the 2021 proposed rule in early July 2020.

Once CMS confirms its decision, reach out to your payers to negotiate implementing the new E/M rates starting in 2021.

With changes this big, we encourage you to prepare early. Watch for more information on the 2021 E/M changes in Washington Insider and AGA eDigest.
 

Dr. Kuo is the AGA’s Advisor to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel and a member of the AGA Practice Management and Economics Committee’s (PMEC) Coverage and Reimbursement Subcommittee (CRS) and assistant professor of medicine and gastroenterology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Dr. Losurdo is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel, a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and Managing Partner and medical director of Illinois Gastroenterology Group, Elgin, Ill.; Dr. Mehta is the AGA’s advisor to the AMA RVS Update Committee (RUC), a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Dr. Garcia is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the AMA RUC, a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and assistant professor of medicine and gastroenterology at Stanford (Calif.) University. There were no conflicts of interest.

Evaluation and Management (E/M) coding and guidelines are about to undergo the most significant changes since their implementation in the 1990s. For now, the changes are limited to new and established outpatient visits (CPT codes 99202-99205, 99211-99215) and will take place as of Jan. 1, 2021. Changes to all E/M codes are anticipated in the coming years.

The changes to the new and established office/outpatient codes will impact everyone in health care who assigns codes, manages health information, or pays claims including physicians and qualified health professionals, coders, health information managers, payers, health systems, and hospitals. The American Medical Association (AMA) has already released a preview of the CPT 2021 changes as well as free E/M education modules. They are planning to release more educational resources in the near future.
 

Why were changes needed?

The AMA developed the 2021 E/M changes in response to interest from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in reducing physician burden, simplifying documentation requirements, and making changes to payments for the E/M codes. CMS’s initial proposal was to collapse office visit E/M levels 2-5 to a single payment. While the new rates would have provided a modest increase for level 2 and 3 E/M codes, they would have cut reimbursement for the top-level codes by more than 50%. There was concern that these changes would adversely affect physicians caring for complex patients across medical specialties. There was an outcry from the physician community opposing CMS’s proposal, and the agency agreed to get more input from the public before moving forward.

The AMA worked with stakeholders, including the AGA and our sister GI societies, to create E/M guidelines that decrease documentation requirements while also continuing to differentiate payment based on complexity of care. CMS announced in the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) final rule that it would adopt the AMA’s proposal as well as their recommended relative values for 2021 CPT E/M codes. Of note, there will be modest payment increases for most office E/M codes beginning Jan. 1, 2021, which may benefit those who manage patients with complex conditions.

In sum, what are the 2021 E/M changes

While there will be many changes to office/outpatient E/M visits, the most significant are deletion of code 99201 (Level 1 new patient visit), addition of a 15-minute prolonged services code that can be reported with 99205 and 99215, and the following restructuring of office visit code selection:

1. Elimination of history and physical as elements for code selection: While obtaining a pertinent history and performing a relevant physical exam are clinically necessary and contribute to both time and medical decision making, these elements will not factor in to code selection. Instead, the code level will be determined solely by medical decision making or time.

2. Choice of using medical decision making (MDM) or total time as the basis of E/M level documentation:

• MDM. While there will still be three MDM subcomponents (number/complexity of problems, data, and risk), extensive edits were made to the ways in which these elements are defined and tallied.
• Time. The definition of time is now minimum time, not typical time or “face-to-face” time. Minimum time represents total physician/qualified health care professional time on the date of service. This redefinition of time allows Medicare to better recognize the work involved in non–face-to-face services like care coordination and record review. Of note, these definitions only apply when code selection is based on time and not MDM.

3. Modification of the criteria for MDM: The current CMS Table of Risk was used as a foundation for designing the revised required elements for MDM.

• Terms. Removed ambiguous terms (e.g., “mild”) and defined previously ambiguous concepts (e.g., “acute or chronic illness with systemic symptoms”).
• Definitions. Defined important terms, such as “independent historian.”
• Data elements. Re-defined the data elements to move away from simply adding up tasks to focusing on how those tasks affect the management of the patient (e.g., independent interpretation of a test performed by another provider and/or discussion of test interpretation with another physician).

CMS also plans to add a new Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) add-on code as of Jan. 1, 2021, that can be used to recognize additional resource costs that are inherent in treating complex patients.

• GPCX1 - Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious, or complex chronic condition. (Add-on code, list separately in addition to office/outpatient evaluation and management visit, new or established.).

GPC1X can be reported with all levels of E/M office/outpatient codes in which care of a patient’s single, serious, or complex chronic condition is the focus. CMS plans to reimburse GPC1X at 0.33 RVUs (about $12).
 

Who do these changes apply to?

The changes to the E/M office/outpatient CPT codes and guidelines for new and established patients apply to all traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, Medicaid, and all commercial payers. E/M HCPCS codes apply to Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans, and Medicaid only; commercial payers are not required to accept HCPCS codes.

What should you do?

Visit the AMA E/M Microsite; there you will find the AMA’s early release of the 2021 E/M coding and guideline changes, the AMA E/M learning module and future resources on the use of time and MDM that are expected to be released in March.

AMA E/M Microsite: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/cpt/cpt-evaluation-and-management

2021 E/M changes: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-office-prolonged-svs-code-changes.pdf

AMA E/M learning module: https://edhub.ama-assn.org/interactive/18057429

AMA MDM table: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-revised-mdm-grid.pdf

Connect with your coders and/or medical billing company to create a plan for training physicians and staff to ensure a smooth transition on Jan. 1, 2021.

Contact your Electronic Health Records (EHR) vendor to confirm the system your practice uses will be ready to implement the new E/M coding and guidelines changes on Jan. 1, 2021.

Run an analysis using the new E/M office/outpatient payment rates recommended by the AMA for 2021 (https://www.ama-assn.org/about/rvs-update-committee-ruc/ruc-recommendations-minutes-voting) for each of your practice’s contracted payers to determine if your practice will benefit from the new rates. While CMS has proposed to accept the AMA recommended rates, this will not be finalized until CMS publishes the 2021 proposed rule in early July 2020.

Once CMS confirms its decision, reach out to your payers to negotiate implementing the new E/M rates starting in 2021.

With changes this big, we encourage you to prepare early. Watch for more information on the 2021 E/M changes in Washington Insider and AGA eDigest.
 

Dr. Kuo is the AGA’s Advisor to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel and a member of the AGA Practice Management and Economics Committee’s (PMEC) Coverage and Reimbursement Subcommittee (CRS) and assistant professor of medicine and gastroenterology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Dr. Losurdo is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel, a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and Managing Partner and medical director of Illinois Gastroenterology Group, Elgin, Ill.; Dr. Mehta is the AGA’s advisor to the AMA RVS Update Committee (RUC), a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Dr. Garcia is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the AMA RUC, a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and assistant professor of medicine and gastroenterology at Stanford (Calif.) University. There were no conflicts of interest.

Cancer patients in states that opted to expand Medicaid insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act saw a slightly better rate of early diagnosis, compared with patients in states that refused expansion, according to a new study. However, time to treatment was similar in states that opted for expansion and states that did not.

Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers used the National Cancer Database to examine the changes in health insurance coverage and cancer health outcomes in nonelderly patients following implementation of the Affordable Care Act in January 2014. The investigators identified records for 925,543 patients who had new-onset breast (59%), colon (15%), or non–small cell lung (27%) cancer between 2011 and 2016. The patients’ mean age was 55 years (range, 40-64 years), 79% were women, 14% were black, and 6% were Hispanic.

The researchers looked at insurance status, cancer stage at diagnosis, and treatment initiation within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis. The cohort was equally divided between residents of Medicaid expansion states (48%) and nonexpansion states (52%).

Using a statistical technique that mimics a controlled experiment, the investigators found the percentage of uninsured patients decreased more in the expansion states (adjusted difference-in-differences, −0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −1.2 to −0.3; P = .001), compared with nonexpansion states. Expansion states also had a greater increase in early-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, 0.8; 95% CI 0.3-1.2; P = .001) and a greater decrease in advanced-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, −0.5; 95% CI, −0.9 to −0.2; P = .003).

Among the 848,329 patients who underwent cancer treatment within a year of diagnosis, the percentage initiating treatment within 30 days declined from 52.7% before to 48% after Medicaid expansion in states opting in (unadjusted DID, −4.7; percentage points, 95% CI; −5.1 to −4.5). States that did not expand their Medicaid programs, meanwhile, saw the share decline from 56.9% to 51.5% in the same time period (adjusted DID, −5.4; 95% CI, −5.6 to −5.1). There was no statistically significant difference in timely treatment associated with Medicaid expansion (adjusted DID, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.2 to 1.4; P = .14).

The researchers speculated that the lack of significant between-group differences in time to treatment, despite an improvement in early-stage diagnoses associated with Medicaid expansion, could reflect a cancer care system strained by a surge in insured patients, overall increases in cancer prevalence and complexity of care, a shortage of workers, or a mixture of factors.

In a related editorial, Sue Fu, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote that, while the findings of increased early diagnosis seen in the study are promising, the time to treatment results are “puzzling” and deserve further consideration.

Time to treatment is important in cancer, as longer times are associated with increased mortality, Dr. Fu and colleagues noted. Slowing times to cancer treatment is a systemic problem in the United States that has been documented since the mid-2000s. Paradoxically, expanded insurance coverage could contribute to increasing time to treatment even after timely diagnosis by adding administrative burdens leading to longer wait times. “Newly insured and underinsured individuals may be particularly vulnerable to this,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Takvorian and colleagues noted as weaknesses of their study its observational design, a limited range of ages and cancers included, and an inability to adjust for state-level effects.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Agency for Health Research and Quality. The authors of the study and the editorial disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Takvorian SU et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921653; Fu S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921690.

Cancer patients in states that opted to expand Medicaid insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act saw a slightly better rate of early diagnosis, compared with patients in states that refused expansion, according to a new study. However, time to treatment was similar in states that opted for expansion and states that did not.

Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers used the National Cancer Database to examine the changes in health insurance coverage and cancer health outcomes in nonelderly patients following implementation of the Affordable Care Act in January 2014. The investigators identified records for 925,543 patients who had new-onset breast (59%), colon (15%), or non–small cell lung (27%) cancer between 2011 and 2016. The patients’ mean age was 55 years (range, 40-64 years), 79% were women, 14% were black, and 6% were Hispanic.

The researchers looked at insurance status, cancer stage at diagnosis, and treatment initiation within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis. The cohort was equally divided between residents of Medicaid expansion states (48%) and nonexpansion states (52%).

Using a statistical technique that mimics a controlled experiment, the investigators found the percentage of uninsured patients decreased more in the expansion states (adjusted difference-in-differences, −0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −1.2 to −0.3; P = .001), compared with nonexpansion states. Expansion states also had a greater increase in early-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, 0.8; 95% CI 0.3-1.2; P = .001) and a greater decrease in advanced-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, −0.5; 95% CI, −0.9 to −0.2; P = .003).

Among the 848,329 patients who underwent cancer treatment within a year of diagnosis, the percentage initiating treatment within 30 days declined from 52.7% before to 48% after Medicaid expansion in states opting in (unadjusted DID, −4.7; percentage points, 95% CI; −5.1 to −4.5). States that did not expand their Medicaid programs, meanwhile, saw the share decline from 56.9% to 51.5% in the same time period (adjusted DID, −5.4; 95% CI, −5.6 to −5.1). There was no statistically significant difference in timely treatment associated with Medicaid expansion (adjusted DID, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.2 to 1.4; P = .14).

The researchers speculated that the lack of significant between-group differences in time to treatment, despite an improvement in early-stage diagnoses associated with Medicaid expansion, could reflect a cancer care system strained by a surge in insured patients, overall increases in cancer prevalence and complexity of care, a shortage of workers, or a mixture of factors.

In a related editorial, Sue Fu, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote that, while the findings of increased early diagnosis seen in the study are promising, the time to treatment results are “puzzling” and deserve further consideration.

Time to treatment is important in cancer, as longer times are associated with increased mortality, Dr. Fu and colleagues noted. Slowing times to cancer treatment is a systemic problem in the United States that has been documented since the mid-2000s. Paradoxically, expanded insurance coverage could contribute to increasing time to treatment even after timely diagnosis by adding administrative burdens leading to longer wait times. “Newly insured and underinsured individuals may be particularly vulnerable to this,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Takvorian and colleagues noted as weaknesses of their study its observational design, a limited range of ages and cancers included, and an inability to adjust for state-level effects.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Agency for Health Research and Quality. The authors of the study and the editorial disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Takvorian SU et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921653; Fu S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921690.

Cancer patients in states that opted to expand Medicaid insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act saw a slightly better rate of early diagnosis, compared with patients in states that refused expansion, according to a new study. However, time to treatment was similar in states that opted for expansion and states that did not.

Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers used the National Cancer Database to examine the changes in health insurance coverage and cancer health outcomes in nonelderly patients following implementation of the Affordable Care Act in January 2014. The investigators identified records for 925,543 patients who had new-onset breast (59%), colon (15%), or non–small cell lung (27%) cancer between 2011 and 2016. The patients’ mean age was 55 years (range, 40-64 years), 79% were women, 14% were black, and 6% were Hispanic.

The researchers looked at insurance status, cancer stage at diagnosis, and treatment initiation within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis. The cohort was equally divided between residents of Medicaid expansion states (48%) and nonexpansion states (52%).

Using a statistical technique that mimics a controlled experiment, the investigators found the percentage of uninsured patients decreased more in the expansion states (adjusted difference-in-differences, −0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −1.2 to −0.3; P = .001), compared with nonexpansion states. Expansion states also had a greater increase in early-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, 0.8; 95% CI 0.3-1.2; P = .001) and a greater decrease in advanced-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, −0.5; 95% CI, −0.9 to −0.2; P = .003).

Among the 848,329 patients who underwent cancer treatment within a year of diagnosis, the percentage initiating treatment within 30 days declined from 52.7% before to 48% after Medicaid expansion in states opting in (unadjusted DID, −4.7; percentage points, 95% CI; −5.1 to −4.5). States that did not expand their Medicaid programs, meanwhile, saw the share decline from 56.9% to 51.5% in the same time period (adjusted DID, −5.4; 95% CI, −5.6 to −5.1). There was no statistically significant difference in timely treatment associated with Medicaid expansion (adjusted DID, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.2 to 1.4; P = .14).

The researchers speculated that the lack of significant between-group differences in time to treatment, despite an improvement in early-stage diagnoses associated with Medicaid expansion, could reflect a cancer care system strained by a surge in insured patients, overall increases in cancer prevalence and complexity of care, a shortage of workers, or a mixture of factors.

In a related editorial, Sue Fu, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote that, while the findings of increased early diagnosis seen in the study are promising, the time to treatment results are “puzzling” and deserve further consideration.

Time to treatment is important in cancer, as longer times are associated with increased mortality, Dr. Fu and colleagues noted. Slowing times to cancer treatment is a systemic problem in the United States that has been documented since the mid-2000s. Paradoxically, expanded insurance coverage could contribute to increasing time to treatment even after timely diagnosis by adding administrative burdens leading to longer wait times. “Newly insured and underinsured individuals may be particularly vulnerable to this,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Takvorian and colleagues noted as weaknesses of their study its observational design, a limited range of ages and cancers included, and an inability to adjust for state-level effects.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Agency for Health Research and Quality. The authors of the study and the editorial disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Takvorian SU et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921653; Fu S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921690.

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear opening arguments for June Medical Services v. Russo. (Please note that this case was originally referred to as June Medical Services v. Gee. However, Secretary Rebekah Gee resigned from her position on January 31, 2020, and was replaced by Interim Secretary Stephen Russo.) The case will examine a Louisiana law (Louisiana Act 620, or LA 620), originally passed in 2014, that requires physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.¹ When LA 620 was signed into law in 2014, 5 of Louisiana’s 6 abortion clinics would not have met the standards created by this legislation and would have been forced to close, potentially leaving the vast majority of women in Louisiana without access to an abortion provider, and disproportionately impacting poor and rural women. Prior to enactment of this law, physicians at these 5 clinics attempted to obtain admitting privileges, and all were denied. The denials occurred due to two main reasons—because the providers admitted too few patients each year to qualify for hospital privileges or simply because they provided abortion care.² Shortly after this legislation was signed into law, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) challenged the law, citing the undue burden it created for patients attempting to access abortion care.
 

Prior case also considered question of hospital privileges for abortion providers

Interestingly, SCOTUS already has ruled on this very question. In 1992, the Court ruled in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ And in 2016, when considering whether or not requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital privileges creates an undue burden in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court’s answer was yes, it does. WWH, with legal aid from CRR, challenged Texas House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), which similar to LA 620, required abortion providers to have local admitting privileges. Based largely on the precedent set in Casey, SCOTUS ruled 5-3 in favor of WWH.

The Louisiana law currently in question was written and challenged in district court simultaneous to the Supreme Court’s review of WWH. The district court declared LA 620 invalid and permanently enjoined its enforcement, finding the law would “drastically burden women’s right to choose abortions.”⁴ However, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and overturned the district court decision, finding the lower court’s analysis erroneous and stating, “no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of [LA 620].” The Fifth Circuit panel ruled that, despite the precedent of WWH, LA 620 did not create an undue burden because of state-level differences in admitting privileges, demographics, and geography. They also found that only 30% of the 2 million women living in Louisiana would be impacted by the law, predominantly via longer wait times, and argued that this does not represent significant burden. The plaintiffs filed for an emergency stay with SCOTUS, who granted the stay pending a full hearing. On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine if the Fifth Circuit was correct in drawing a distinction between LA 620 and the SCOTUS verdict in WWH.

Targeted restrictions on abortion providers

LA 620 joins a long series of laws meant to enact targeted restrictions on abortion providers, or “TRAP” laws. TRAP laws are written to limit access to abortion under the guise of improving patient safety, despite ample evidence to the contrary, and include such various regulations as admitting privileges, facilities requirements, waiting periods, and parental or partner notification. Many such laws have been enacted in the last decade, and many struck down based on judicial precedent.

How the Supreme Court has ruled in the past

When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court can either decline to hear the case, thereby leaving the lower courts’ ruling in place, or choose to hear the case in full and either affirm or overturn the lower court’s decision. After issuing a ruling in WWH, the 2016-2017 Roberts Court declined to hear challenges from other states with similarly overturned laws, leaving the laws struck down. In electing to hear June Medical Services v. Russo, the court has the opportunity to uphold or overturn the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision. However, today’s Supreme Court differs greatly from the Supreme Court in 2016.

In 2016, the court ruled 5-3 to overturn H.B. 2 in WWH shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Constitutional originalist who has never directly ruled on an abortion case.⁵ In 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the court’s majority opinion on Casey and was among the majority on WWH, retired, and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has ruled once on the right to abortion in Garza v. Hargan in 2017, where he argued that precedent states that the government has “permissible interests in favoring fetal life…and refraining from facilitating abortion,” and that significant delay in care did not constitute undue burden.⁶ In regard to the 5-4 stay issued by the court in June Medical Services, Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in voting to deny the application for stay, and was the only justice to issue an opinion alongside the ruling, arguing that because the doctors in question had not applied for and been denied admitting privileges since the WWH ruling, the case hinges on theoretical rather than demonstrable undue burden.⁷ Appointed by President Donald Trump, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are widely considered to be conservative judges, and while neither has a strong judicial record on abortion rights, both are anticipated to side with the conservative majority on the court.

The Supreme Court rarely overturns its own precedent, but concerns are high

The question of precedent will be central in SCOTUS hearing June Medical Services v. Russo so quickly after the WWH decision. Additionally, in hearing this case, the court will have the opportunity to reexamine all relevant precedent, including the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision and even Roe v. Wade. With a conservative court and an increasingly charged political environment, reproductive rights advocates fear that the June Medical Services v. Russo ruling may be the first step toward dismantling judicial protection of abortion rights in the United States.

If SCOTUS rules against June Medical Services, stating that admitting privileges do not cause an undue burden for women seeking to access abortion care, other states likely will introduce and enact similar legislation. These TRAP laws have the potential to limit or eliminate access to abortion for 25 million people of reproductive age. Numerous studies have demonstrated that limiting access to abortion care does not decrease the number of abortions but can result in patients using unsafe means to obtain an abortion.⁸

The medical community recognizes the danger of enacting restrictive legislation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with the American Medical Association, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Association for Sexual and Reproductive Medicine, the American Association of Family Practitioners, and many others, filed an amicus curiae in support of the June Medical Services plaintiffs.⁹ These brief filings are critical to ensuring the courts hear physician voices in this important legal decision, and ACOG’s briefs have been quoted in several previous Supreme Court opinions, concurrences, and dissents.
 

Action items

• Although June Medical Services v. Russo’s decision will not be made until early summer 2020, we can continue to use our voices and expertise to speak out against laws designed to limit access to abortion—at the state and federal levels. As women’s health clinicians, we see the impact abortion restrictions have on our patients, especially our low income and rural patients. Sharing these stories with our legislators, testifying for or against legislation, and speaking out in our communities can have a powerful impact. Check with your local ACOG chapter or with ACOG’s state and government affairs office for more information.
• Follow along with this case at SCOTUS Blog.
• Lastly, make sure you are registered to vote. We are in an election year, and using our voices in and out of the ballot box is critical. You can register here.

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear opening arguments for June Medical Services v. Russo. (Please note that this case was originally referred to as June Medical Services v. Gee. However, Secretary Rebekah Gee resigned from her position on January 31, 2020, and was replaced by Interim Secretary Stephen Russo.) The case will examine a Louisiana law (Louisiana Act 620, or LA 620), originally passed in 2014, that requires physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.¹ When LA 620 was signed into law in 2014, 5 of Louisiana’s 6 abortion clinics would not have met the standards created by this legislation and would have been forced to close, potentially leaving the vast majority of women in Louisiana without access to an abortion provider, and disproportionately impacting poor and rural women. Prior to enactment of this law, physicians at these 5 clinics attempted to obtain admitting privileges, and all were denied. The denials occurred due to two main reasons—because the providers admitted too few patients each year to qualify for hospital privileges or simply because they provided abortion care.² Shortly after this legislation was signed into law, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) challenged the law, citing the undue burden it created for patients attempting to access abortion care.
 

Prior case also considered question of hospital privileges for abortion providers

Interestingly, SCOTUS already has ruled on this very question. In 1992, the Court ruled in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ And in 2016, when considering whether or not requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital privileges creates an undue burden in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court’s answer was yes, it does. WWH, with legal aid from CRR, challenged Texas House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), which similar to LA 620, required abortion providers to have local admitting privileges. Based largely on the precedent set in Casey, SCOTUS ruled 5-3 in favor of WWH.

The Louisiana law currently in question was written and challenged in district court simultaneous to the Supreme Court’s review of WWH. The district court declared LA 620 invalid and permanently enjoined its enforcement, finding the law would “drastically burden women’s right to choose abortions.”⁴ However, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and overturned the district court decision, finding the lower court’s analysis erroneous and stating, “no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of [LA 620].” The Fifth Circuit panel ruled that, despite the precedent of WWH, LA 620 did not create an undue burden because of state-level differences in admitting privileges, demographics, and geography. They also found that only 30% of the 2 million women living in Louisiana would be impacted by the law, predominantly via longer wait times, and argued that this does not represent significant burden. The plaintiffs filed for an emergency stay with SCOTUS, who granted the stay pending a full hearing. On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine if the Fifth Circuit was correct in drawing a distinction between LA 620 and the SCOTUS verdict in WWH.

Targeted restrictions on abortion providers

LA 620 joins a long series of laws meant to enact targeted restrictions on abortion providers, or “TRAP” laws. TRAP laws are written to limit access to abortion under the guise of improving patient safety, despite ample evidence to the contrary, and include such various regulations as admitting privileges, facilities requirements, waiting periods, and parental or partner notification. Many such laws have been enacted in the last decade, and many struck down based on judicial precedent.

How the Supreme Court has ruled in the past

When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court can either decline to hear the case, thereby leaving the lower courts’ ruling in place, or choose to hear the case in full and either affirm or overturn the lower court’s decision. After issuing a ruling in WWH, the 2016-2017 Roberts Court declined to hear challenges from other states with similarly overturned laws, leaving the laws struck down. In electing to hear June Medical Services v. Russo, the court has the opportunity to uphold or overturn the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision. However, today’s Supreme Court differs greatly from the Supreme Court in 2016.

In 2016, the court ruled 5-3 to overturn H.B. 2 in WWH shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Constitutional originalist who has never directly ruled on an abortion case.⁵ In 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the court’s majority opinion on Casey and was among the majority on WWH, retired, and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has ruled once on the right to abortion in Garza v. Hargan in 2017, where he argued that precedent states that the government has “permissible interests in favoring fetal life…and refraining from facilitating abortion,” and that significant delay in care did not constitute undue burden.⁶ In regard to the 5-4 stay issued by the court in June Medical Services, Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in voting to deny the application for stay, and was the only justice to issue an opinion alongside the ruling, arguing that because the doctors in question had not applied for and been denied admitting privileges since the WWH ruling, the case hinges on theoretical rather than demonstrable undue burden.⁷ Appointed by President Donald Trump, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are widely considered to be conservative judges, and while neither has a strong judicial record on abortion rights, both are anticipated to side with the conservative majority on the court.

The Supreme Court rarely overturns its own precedent, but concerns are high

The question of precedent will be central in SCOTUS hearing June Medical Services v. Russo so quickly after the WWH decision. Additionally, in hearing this case, the court will have the opportunity to reexamine all relevant precedent, including the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision and even Roe v. Wade. With a conservative court and an increasingly charged political environment, reproductive rights advocates fear that the June Medical Services v. Russo ruling may be the first step toward dismantling judicial protection of abortion rights in the United States.

If SCOTUS rules against June Medical Services, stating that admitting privileges do not cause an undue burden for women seeking to access abortion care, other states likely will introduce and enact similar legislation. These TRAP laws have the potential to limit or eliminate access to abortion for 25 million people of reproductive age. Numerous studies have demonstrated that limiting access to abortion care does not decrease the number of abortions but can result in patients using unsafe means to obtain an abortion.⁸

The medical community recognizes the danger of enacting restrictive legislation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with the American Medical Association, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Association for Sexual and Reproductive Medicine, the American Association of Family Practitioners, and many others, filed an amicus curiae in support of the June Medical Services plaintiffs.⁹ These brief filings are critical to ensuring the courts hear physician voices in this important legal decision, and ACOG’s briefs have been quoted in several previous Supreme Court opinions, concurrences, and dissents.
 

Action items

• Although June Medical Services v. Russo’s decision will not be made until early summer 2020, we can continue to use our voices and expertise to speak out against laws designed to limit access to abortion—at the state and federal levels. As women’s health clinicians, we see the impact abortion restrictions have on our patients, especially our low income and rural patients. Sharing these stories with our legislators, testifying for or against legislation, and speaking out in our communities can have a powerful impact. Check with your local ACOG chapter or with ACOG’s state and government affairs office for more information.
• Follow along with this case at SCOTUS Blog.
• Lastly, make sure you are registered to vote. We are in an election year, and using our voices in and out of the ballot box is critical. You can register here.

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear opening arguments for June Medical Services v. Russo. (Please note that this case was originally referred to as June Medical Services v. Gee. However, Secretary Rebekah Gee resigned from her position on January 31, 2020, and was replaced by Interim Secretary Stephen Russo.) The case will examine a Louisiana law (Louisiana Act 620, or LA 620), originally passed in 2014, that requires physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.¹ When LA 620 was signed into law in 2014, 5 of Louisiana’s 6 abortion clinics would not have met the standards created by this legislation and would have been forced to close, potentially leaving the vast majority of women in Louisiana without access to an abortion provider, and disproportionately impacting poor and rural women. Prior to enactment of this law, physicians at these 5 clinics attempted to obtain admitting privileges, and all were denied. The denials occurred due to two main reasons—because the providers admitted too few patients each year to qualify for hospital privileges or simply because they provided abortion care.² Shortly after this legislation was signed into law, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) challenged the law, citing the undue burden it created for patients attempting to access abortion care.
 

Prior case also considered question of hospital privileges for abortion providers

Interestingly, SCOTUS already has ruled on this very question. In 1992, the Court ruled in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ And in 2016, when considering whether or not requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital privileges creates an undue burden in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court’s answer was yes, it does. WWH, with legal aid from CRR, challenged Texas House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), which similar to LA 620, required abortion providers to have local admitting privileges. Based largely on the precedent set in Casey, SCOTUS ruled 5-3 in favor of WWH.

The Louisiana law currently in question was written and challenged in district court simultaneous to the Supreme Court’s review of WWH. The district court declared LA 620 invalid and permanently enjoined its enforcement, finding the law would “drastically burden women’s right to choose abortions.”⁴ However, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and overturned the district court decision, finding the lower court’s analysis erroneous and stating, “no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of [LA 620].” The Fifth Circuit panel ruled that, despite the precedent of WWH, LA 620 did not create an undue burden because of state-level differences in admitting privileges, demographics, and geography. They also found that only 30% of the 2 million women living in Louisiana would be impacted by the law, predominantly via longer wait times, and argued that this does not represent significant burden. The plaintiffs filed for an emergency stay with SCOTUS, who granted the stay pending a full hearing. On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine if the Fifth Circuit was correct in drawing a distinction between LA 620 and the SCOTUS verdict in WWH.

Targeted restrictions on abortion providers

LA 620 joins a long series of laws meant to enact targeted restrictions on abortion providers, or “TRAP” laws. TRAP laws are written to limit access to abortion under the guise of improving patient safety, despite ample evidence to the contrary, and include such various regulations as admitting privileges, facilities requirements, waiting periods, and parental or partner notification. Many such laws have been enacted in the last decade, and many struck down based on judicial precedent.

How the Supreme Court has ruled in the past

When a case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the court can either decline to hear the case, thereby leaving the lower courts’ ruling in place, or choose to hear the case in full and either affirm or overturn the lower court’s decision. After issuing a ruling in WWH, the 2016-2017 Roberts Court declined to hear challenges from other states with similarly overturned laws, leaving the laws struck down. In electing to hear June Medical Services v. Russo, the court has the opportunity to uphold or overturn the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision. However, today’s Supreme Court differs greatly from the Supreme Court in 2016.

In 2016, the court ruled 5-3 to overturn H.B. 2 in WWH shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Constitutional originalist who has never directly ruled on an abortion case.⁵ In 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the court’s majority opinion on Casey and was among the majority on WWH, retired, and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has ruled once on the right to abortion in Garza v. Hargan in 2017, where he argued that precedent states that the government has “permissible interests in favoring fetal life…and refraining from facilitating abortion,” and that significant delay in care did not constitute undue burden.⁶ In regard to the 5-4 stay issued by the court in June Medical Services, Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in voting to deny the application for stay, and was the only justice to issue an opinion alongside the ruling, arguing that because the doctors in question had not applied for and been denied admitting privileges since the WWH ruling, the case hinges on theoretical rather than demonstrable undue burden.⁷ Appointed by President Donald Trump, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are widely considered to be conservative judges, and while neither has a strong judicial record on abortion rights, both are anticipated to side with the conservative majority on the court.

The Supreme Court rarely overturns its own precedent, but concerns are high

The question of precedent will be central in SCOTUS hearing June Medical Services v. Russo so quickly after the WWH decision. Additionally, in hearing this case, the court will have the opportunity to reexamine all relevant precedent, including the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision and even Roe v. Wade. With a conservative court and an increasingly charged political environment, reproductive rights advocates fear that the June Medical Services v. Russo ruling may be the first step toward dismantling judicial protection of abortion rights in the United States.

If SCOTUS rules against June Medical Services, stating that admitting privileges do not cause an undue burden for women seeking to access abortion care, other states likely will introduce and enact similar legislation. These TRAP laws have the potential to limit or eliminate access to abortion for 25 million people of reproductive age. Numerous studies have demonstrated that limiting access to abortion care does not decrease the number of abortions but can result in patients using unsafe means to obtain an abortion.⁸

The medical community recognizes the danger of enacting restrictive legislation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with the American Medical Association, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Association for Sexual and Reproductive Medicine, the American Association of Family Practitioners, and many others, filed an amicus curiae in support of the June Medical Services plaintiffs.⁹ These brief filings are critical to ensuring the courts hear physician voices in this important legal decision, and ACOG’s briefs have been quoted in several previous Supreme Court opinions, concurrences, and dissents.
 

Action items

• Although June Medical Services v. Russo’s decision will not be made until early summer 2020, we can continue to use our voices and expertise to speak out against laws designed to limit access to abortion—at the state and federal levels. As women’s health clinicians, we see the impact abortion restrictions have on our patients, especially our low income and rural patients. Sharing these stories with our legislators, testifying for or against legislation, and speaking out in our communities can have a powerful impact. Check with your local ACOG chapter or with ACOG’s state and government affairs office for more information.
• Follow along with this case at SCOTUS Blog.
• Lastly, make sure you are registered to vote. We are in an election year, and using our voices in and out of the ballot box is critical. You can register here.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I review “guidelines for today” and speculate about “guidelines for tomorrow,” highlighting recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology about hereditary cancer testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) and data that support a reexamination of the age at which screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) should begin.

ASCO guidelines on genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer

After reviewing 19 studies, including 6 meta-analyses; 11 randomized, controlled trials; and 2 observational studies, an ASCO panel recommended germline genetic testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, and other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes for all women with newly diagnosed epithelial OC, regardless of family history (J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02960).

For OC patients with a germline mutation, cascade testing of first- and second-degree relatives was strongly urged. For patients without a germline mutation, the guidelines recommended offering somatic tumor testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants at disease recurrence or after initial therapy and for mismatch repair deficiency (MMRD) in patients with clear cell, endometrioid, or mucinous and potentially other histologic types of OC. The authors cautioned that the discussion of testing results should involve professionals with expertise in the surveillance and management of hereditary cancer syndromes.

The panel said the discovery of germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants should lead to considering treatment with Food and Drug Administration–approved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, including niraparib, olaparib, and rucaparib. Identification of MMRD in a patient with recurrent OC should trigger consideration of treatment with pembrolizumab, consistent with its labeled indications, and surveillance for other malignancies.

The guidelines cautioned that, when patients have variants of uncertain significance on germline testing, “clinical features and family history should inform clinical decision making.” Similarly, the panel made no recommendation regarding testing for or making treatment decisions based on tests for homologous recombination deficiency.
 

How these results influence practice

Every oncologist recognizes that better understanding of cancer biology can guide personalized diagnostic, predictive, prognostic, and therapeutic strategies for patients and their family members.

It is estimated that approximately 25% of all OC is caused by a heritable genetic condition. Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are identified in 13%-15% of patients with OC, and somatic mutations are found in an additional 7%. Perhaps 6% of all ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancers are caused by mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2. For that reason, germline sequencing should be performed via multigene panels that assess BRCA1/2 and other relevant mutations.

MMDR has been found in 10%-12% of unselected epithelial OC, with increased representation in nonserous histologies. That frequency is high enough to justify testing for it routinely.

Unfortunately, only about 30% of women undergo genetic testing. Given the frequency of molecular abnormalities in OC, this is problematic in every conceivable domain of clinical care for patients and family members. ASCO’s comprehensive, educational guidelines provide a template for shared decision making and utilize resources that are available in almost all clinical settings. For those clinicians who have recommended genetic testing for all epithelial OC patients, these guidelines are practice reaffirming. For the rest of us, they are practice changing.
 

Colorectal cancer cases spike after start of routine screening

Instead of examining CRC incidence by the usual 5- or 10-year age ranges, a group of researchers looked at CRC incidence in 1-year intervals for adults aged 30-60 years in the SEER-18 registry from 2000 to 2015 (JAMA Network Open. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20407). The researchers focused their attention on the transition between age 49 and 50 years, which is when routine screening generally begins and case-finding based on symptoms and signs of CRC alone ideally ends.

The group’s hypothesis was that steep increases in CRC incidence between ages 49 and 50 would be consistent with a high, undetected preclinical case burden in patients aged younger than 50 years and that this “real-world” registry data could help estimate outcomes of screening at younger ages. The researchers found that CRC incidence increased by 46.1% in the transition period from age 49 to 50 years. A majority (93%) of these cases were invasive and, therefore, likely to be clinically relevant. The increase in cancer rates occurred across geographical regions, gender, and race, and likely reflected the impact of screening. The states with the steepest increases in CRC between ages 49 and 50 (Connecticut and Utah) were the states with the first and third highest CRC screening rates for individuals 50 years of age and older.

Stage stratification showed steep increases in incidence in the target age range for localized and regional CRC and for colon and rectal tumors. In the transition between age 49 and 50, the researchers found a significant increase in 5-year relative survival (6.9% absolute increase, 10% relative increase), suggesting that earlier screening had a survival impact, apart from the effects of treatment in cases diagnosed after symptoms occurred.

The authors concluded that their analysis of the transition from age 49 to 50 years provides registry-based data regarding CRC risk among individuals younger than 50, which can add to existing modeling studies to help inform guidelines about the age at which to initiate screening.
 

How these results influence practice

Early-onset CRC (EOCRC) incidence is increasing, with controversy regarding whether average-risk screening should begin before age 50 years. The justification for starting screening at age 50 is that there is a near doubling of incidence from patients aged 45-49 years (34 per 100,000) to those aged 50-54 years (60.2 per 100,000).

However, the increase in CRC incidence beyond age 50 may not be because rates are truly lower among younger individuals but rather because of uneven screening between the two populations. Doubling times for CRCs have been estimated to be perhaps as long as 1,000 days. Because many CRCs are asymptomatic, observed incidence rates of EOCRC in SEER registries do not reflect preclinical CRC case burdens in younger patients.

The current interrogation of SEER-18 data to identify preexisting CRC that was clinically silent in the 1-year interval between age 49 and 50 is highly supportive of a large undiagnosed number of EOCRC cases. In SEER-18, CRC rates increased 46.1% in this 1-year age transition, more than in earlier 1-year age transitions. With almost 93% of cases being invasive, these data suggest a high case burden of preclinical, undetected, clinically relevant EOCRC in younger patients that is not reflected in observed SEER incidence rates examining wider age group intervals.

The dual goals of screening for CRC are to prevent malignant neoplasms by the removal of precancerous polyps and improve cancer-specific survival. The data presented suggest that, by starting average-risk screening at age 50 years, we may be “missing the window.” The 6.9% absolute and 10.1% relative survival increase in the target transition period suggest the authors’ hypothesis is correct.

As in any real-world database survey, the analysis is limited by a lack of specific outcomes data, the inability to determine when the cancers developed, and how long they germinated. Because of those limitations and others, more detailed studies are needed to determine the ideal age at which to begin CRC screening.

Modeling studies incorporating the steep incidence inflection point at 49-50 years can be conducted to estimate the incidence rate increase at, for example, 45 years; the cost-benefit ratio; quality-adjusted life-years gained; and other important endpoints. However, this review of over 170,000 cases of CRC, with a data-completeness rate of over 98%, over the 15-year time frame when CRC screening became common, supports a fresh look at whether it is within our power to improve outcomes for EOCRC patients by using existing technology but applying it earlier.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I review “guidelines for today” and speculate about “guidelines for tomorrow,” highlighting recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology about hereditary cancer testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) and data that support a reexamination of the age at which screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) should begin.

ASCO guidelines on genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer

After reviewing 19 studies, including 6 meta-analyses; 11 randomized, controlled trials; and 2 observational studies, an ASCO panel recommended germline genetic testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, and other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes for all women with newly diagnosed epithelial OC, regardless of family history (J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02960).

For OC patients with a germline mutation, cascade testing of first- and second-degree relatives was strongly urged. For patients without a germline mutation, the guidelines recommended offering somatic tumor testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants at disease recurrence or after initial therapy and for mismatch repair deficiency (MMRD) in patients with clear cell, endometrioid, or mucinous and potentially other histologic types of OC. The authors cautioned that the discussion of testing results should involve professionals with expertise in the surveillance and management of hereditary cancer syndromes.

The panel said the discovery of germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants should lead to considering treatment with Food and Drug Administration–approved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, including niraparib, olaparib, and rucaparib. Identification of MMRD in a patient with recurrent OC should trigger consideration of treatment with pembrolizumab, consistent with its labeled indications, and surveillance for other malignancies.

The guidelines cautioned that, when patients have variants of uncertain significance on germline testing, “clinical features and family history should inform clinical decision making.” Similarly, the panel made no recommendation regarding testing for or making treatment decisions based on tests for homologous recombination deficiency.
 

How these results influence practice

Every oncologist recognizes that better understanding of cancer biology can guide personalized diagnostic, predictive, prognostic, and therapeutic strategies for patients and their family members.

It is estimated that approximately 25% of all OC is caused by a heritable genetic condition. Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are identified in 13%-15% of patients with OC, and somatic mutations are found in an additional 7%. Perhaps 6% of all ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancers are caused by mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2. For that reason, germline sequencing should be performed via multigene panels that assess BRCA1/2 and other relevant mutations.

MMDR has been found in 10%-12% of unselected epithelial OC, with increased representation in nonserous histologies. That frequency is high enough to justify testing for it routinely.

Unfortunately, only about 30% of women undergo genetic testing. Given the frequency of molecular abnormalities in OC, this is problematic in every conceivable domain of clinical care for patients and family members. ASCO’s comprehensive, educational guidelines provide a template for shared decision making and utilize resources that are available in almost all clinical settings. For those clinicians who have recommended genetic testing for all epithelial OC patients, these guidelines are practice reaffirming. For the rest of us, they are practice changing.
 

Colorectal cancer cases spike after start of routine screening

Instead of examining CRC incidence by the usual 5- or 10-year age ranges, a group of researchers looked at CRC incidence in 1-year intervals for adults aged 30-60 years in the SEER-18 registry from 2000 to 2015 (JAMA Network Open. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20407). The researchers focused their attention on the transition between age 49 and 50 years, which is when routine screening generally begins and case-finding based on symptoms and signs of CRC alone ideally ends.

The group’s hypothesis was that steep increases in CRC incidence between ages 49 and 50 would be consistent with a high, undetected preclinical case burden in patients aged younger than 50 years and that this “real-world” registry data could help estimate outcomes of screening at younger ages. The researchers found that CRC incidence increased by 46.1% in the transition period from age 49 to 50 years. A majority (93%) of these cases were invasive and, therefore, likely to be clinically relevant. The increase in cancer rates occurred across geographical regions, gender, and race, and likely reflected the impact of screening. The states with the steepest increases in CRC between ages 49 and 50 (Connecticut and Utah) were the states with the first and third highest CRC screening rates for individuals 50 years of age and older.

Stage stratification showed steep increases in incidence in the target age range for localized and regional CRC and for colon and rectal tumors. In the transition between age 49 and 50, the researchers found a significant increase in 5-year relative survival (6.9% absolute increase, 10% relative increase), suggesting that earlier screening had a survival impact, apart from the effects of treatment in cases diagnosed after symptoms occurred.

The authors concluded that their analysis of the transition from age 49 to 50 years provides registry-based data regarding CRC risk among individuals younger than 50, which can add to existing modeling studies to help inform guidelines about the age at which to initiate screening.
 

How these results influence practice

Early-onset CRC (EOCRC) incidence is increasing, with controversy regarding whether average-risk screening should begin before age 50 years. The justification for starting screening at age 50 is that there is a near doubling of incidence from patients aged 45-49 years (34 per 100,000) to those aged 50-54 years (60.2 per 100,000).

However, the increase in CRC incidence beyond age 50 may not be because rates are truly lower among younger individuals but rather because of uneven screening between the two populations. Doubling times for CRCs have been estimated to be perhaps as long as 1,000 days. Because many CRCs are asymptomatic, observed incidence rates of EOCRC in SEER registries do not reflect preclinical CRC case burdens in younger patients.

The current interrogation of SEER-18 data to identify preexisting CRC that was clinically silent in the 1-year interval between age 49 and 50 is highly supportive of a large undiagnosed number of EOCRC cases. In SEER-18, CRC rates increased 46.1% in this 1-year age transition, more than in earlier 1-year age transitions. With almost 93% of cases being invasive, these data suggest a high case burden of preclinical, undetected, clinically relevant EOCRC in younger patients that is not reflected in observed SEER incidence rates examining wider age group intervals.

The dual goals of screening for CRC are to prevent malignant neoplasms by the removal of precancerous polyps and improve cancer-specific survival. The data presented suggest that, by starting average-risk screening at age 50 years, we may be “missing the window.” The 6.9% absolute and 10.1% relative survival increase in the target transition period suggest the authors’ hypothesis is correct.

As in any real-world database survey, the analysis is limited by a lack of specific outcomes data, the inability to determine when the cancers developed, and how long they germinated. Because of those limitations and others, more detailed studies are needed to determine the ideal age at which to begin CRC screening.

Modeling studies incorporating the steep incidence inflection point at 49-50 years can be conducted to estimate the incidence rate increase at, for example, 45 years; the cost-benefit ratio; quality-adjusted life-years gained; and other important endpoints. However, this review of over 170,000 cases of CRC, with a data-completeness rate of over 98%, over the 15-year time frame when CRC screening became common, supports a fresh look at whether it is within our power to improve outcomes for EOCRC patients by using existing technology but applying it earlier.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I review “guidelines for today” and speculate about “guidelines for tomorrow,” highlighting recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology about hereditary cancer testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) and data that support a reexamination of the age at which screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) should begin.

ASCO guidelines on genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer

After reviewing 19 studies, including 6 meta-analyses; 11 randomized, controlled trials; and 2 observational studies, an ASCO panel recommended germline genetic testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, and other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes for all women with newly diagnosed epithelial OC, regardless of family history (J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02960).

For OC patients with a germline mutation, cascade testing of first- and second-degree relatives was strongly urged. For patients without a germline mutation, the guidelines recommended offering somatic tumor testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants at disease recurrence or after initial therapy and for mismatch repair deficiency (MMRD) in patients with clear cell, endometrioid, or mucinous and potentially other histologic types of OC. The authors cautioned that the discussion of testing results should involve professionals with expertise in the surveillance and management of hereditary cancer syndromes.

The panel said the discovery of germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants should lead to considering treatment with Food and Drug Administration–approved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, including niraparib, olaparib, and rucaparib. Identification of MMRD in a patient with recurrent OC should trigger consideration of treatment with pembrolizumab, consistent with its labeled indications, and surveillance for other malignancies.

The guidelines cautioned that, when patients have variants of uncertain significance on germline testing, “clinical features and family history should inform clinical decision making.” Similarly, the panel made no recommendation regarding testing for or making treatment decisions based on tests for homologous recombination deficiency.
 

How these results influence practice

Every oncologist recognizes that better understanding of cancer biology can guide personalized diagnostic, predictive, prognostic, and therapeutic strategies for patients and their family members.

It is estimated that approximately 25% of all OC is caused by a heritable genetic condition. Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are identified in 13%-15% of patients with OC, and somatic mutations are found in an additional 7%. Perhaps 6% of all ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancers are caused by mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2. For that reason, germline sequencing should be performed via multigene panels that assess BRCA1/2 and other relevant mutations.

MMDR has been found in 10%-12% of unselected epithelial OC, with increased representation in nonserous histologies. That frequency is high enough to justify testing for it routinely.

Unfortunately, only about 30% of women undergo genetic testing. Given the frequency of molecular abnormalities in OC, this is problematic in every conceivable domain of clinical care for patients and family members. ASCO’s comprehensive, educational guidelines provide a template for shared decision making and utilize resources that are available in almost all clinical settings. For those clinicians who have recommended genetic testing for all epithelial OC patients, these guidelines are practice reaffirming. For the rest of us, they are practice changing.
 

Colorectal cancer cases spike after start of routine screening

Instead of examining CRC incidence by the usual 5- or 10-year age ranges, a group of researchers looked at CRC incidence in 1-year intervals for adults aged 30-60 years in the SEER-18 registry from 2000 to 2015 (JAMA Network Open. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20407). The researchers focused their attention on the transition between age 49 and 50 years, which is when routine screening generally begins and case-finding based on symptoms and signs of CRC alone ideally ends.

The group’s hypothesis was that steep increases in CRC incidence between ages 49 and 50 would be consistent with a high, undetected preclinical case burden in patients aged younger than 50 years and that this “real-world” registry data could help estimate outcomes of screening at younger ages. The researchers found that CRC incidence increased by 46.1% in the transition period from age 49 to 50 years. A majority (93%) of these cases were invasive and, therefore, likely to be clinically relevant. The increase in cancer rates occurred across geographical regions, gender, and race, and likely reflected the impact of screening. The states with the steepest increases in CRC between ages 49 and 50 (Connecticut and Utah) were the states with the first and third highest CRC screening rates for individuals 50 years of age and older.

Stage stratification showed steep increases in incidence in the target age range for localized and regional CRC and for colon and rectal tumors. In the transition between age 49 and 50, the researchers found a significant increase in 5-year relative survival (6.9% absolute increase, 10% relative increase), suggesting that earlier screening had a survival impact, apart from the effects of treatment in cases diagnosed after symptoms occurred.

The authors concluded that their analysis of the transition from age 49 to 50 years provides registry-based data regarding CRC risk among individuals younger than 50, which can add to existing modeling studies to help inform guidelines about the age at which to initiate screening.
 

How these results influence practice

Early-onset CRC (EOCRC) incidence is increasing, with controversy regarding whether average-risk screening should begin before age 50 years. The justification for starting screening at age 50 is that there is a near doubling of incidence from patients aged 45-49 years (34 per 100,000) to those aged 50-54 years (60.2 per 100,000).

However, the increase in CRC incidence beyond age 50 may not be because rates are truly lower among younger individuals but rather because of uneven screening between the two populations. Doubling times for CRCs have been estimated to be perhaps as long as 1,000 days. Because many CRCs are asymptomatic, observed incidence rates of EOCRC in SEER registries do not reflect preclinical CRC case burdens in younger patients.

The current interrogation of SEER-18 data to identify preexisting CRC that was clinically silent in the 1-year interval between age 49 and 50 is highly supportive of a large undiagnosed number of EOCRC cases. In SEER-18, CRC rates increased 46.1% in this 1-year age transition, more than in earlier 1-year age transitions. With almost 93% of cases being invasive, these data suggest a high case burden of preclinical, undetected, clinically relevant EOCRC in younger patients that is not reflected in observed SEER incidence rates examining wider age group intervals.

The dual goals of screening for CRC are to prevent malignant neoplasms by the removal of precancerous polyps and improve cancer-specific survival. The data presented suggest that, by starting average-risk screening at age 50 years, we may be “missing the window.” The 6.9% absolute and 10.1% relative survival increase in the target transition period suggest the authors’ hypothesis is correct.

As in any real-world database survey, the analysis is limited by a lack of specific outcomes data, the inability to determine when the cancers developed, and how long they germinated. Because of those limitations and others, more detailed studies are needed to determine the ideal age at which to begin CRC screening.

Modeling studies incorporating the steep incidence inflection point at 49-50 years can be conducted to estimate the incidence rate increase at, for example, 45 years; the cost-benefit ratio; quality-adjusted life-years gained; and other important endpoints. However, this review of over 170,000 cases of CRC, with a data-completeness rate of over 98%, over the 15-year time frame when CRC screening became common, supports a fresh look at whether it is within our power to improve outcomes for EOCRC patients by using existing technology but applying it earlier.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

News that the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program will change its Step 1 scoring from a 3-digit number to pass/fail starting Jan. 1, 2022, has set off a flurry of shocked responses from students and physicians.

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview that he was “stunned” when he heard the news on Wednesday and said the switch presents “the single biggest opportunity for medical school education reform since the Flexner Report,” which in 1910 established standards for modern medical education.

Numbers will continue for some tests

The USMLE cosponsors – the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) – said that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) exam and Step 3 will continue to be scored numerically. Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) will continue its pass/fail system.

The change was made after Step 1 had been roundly criticized as playing too big a role in the process of becoming a physician and for causing students to study for the test instead of engaging fully in their medical education.

Ramie Fathy, a third-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, currently studying for Step 1, said in an interview that it would have been nice personally to have the pass/fail choice, but he predicts both good and unintended consequences in the change.

The positive news, Mr. Fathy said, is that less emphasis will be put on the Step 1 test, which includes memorizing basic science details that may or not be relevant depending on later specialty choice.

“It’s not necessarily measuring what the test makers intended, which was whether or not a student can understand and apply basic science concepts to the practice of medicine,” he said.

“The current system encourages students to get as high a score as possible, which – after a certain point – translates to memorizing many little details that become increasingly less practically relevant,” Mr. Fathy said.

Pressure may move elsewhere?

However, Mr. Fathy worries that, without a scoring system to help decide who stands out in Step 1, residency program directors will depend more on the reputation of candidates’ medical school and the clout of the person writing a letter of recommendation – factors that are often influenced by family resources and social standing. That could wedge a further economic divide into the path to becoming a physician.

Mr. Fathy said he and fellow students are watching for information on what the passing bar will be and what happens with Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam. USMLE has promised more information as soon as it is available.

“The question is whether that test will replace Step 1 as the standardized metric of student competency,” Mr. Fathy said, which would put more pressure on students further down the medical path.

Will Step 2 anxiety increase?

Dr. Carmody agreed that there is the danger that students now will spend their time studying for Step 2 CK at the expense of other parts of their education.

Meaningful reform will depend on the pass/fail move being coupled with other reforms, most importantly application caps, said Dr. Carmody, who teaches preclinical medical students and works with the residency program.

He has been blogging about Step 1 pass/fail for the past year.

Currently students can apply for as many residencies as they can pay for and Carmody said the number of applications per student has been rising over the past decade.

“That puts program directors under an impossible burden,” he said. “With our Step 1-based system, there’s significant inequality in the number of interviews people get. Programs end up overinviting the same group of people who look good on paper.”

People outside that group respond by sending more applications than they need to just to get a few interviews, Dr. Carmody added.

With caps, students would have an incentive to apply to only those programs in which they had a sincere interest, he said. Program directors also would then be better able to evaluate each application.

Switching Step 1 to pass/fail may have some effect on medical school burnout, Dr. Carmody said.

“It’s one thing to work hard when you’re on call and your patients depend on it,” he said. “But I would have a hard time staying up late every night studying something that I know in my heart is not going to help my patients, but I have to do it because I have to do better than the person who’s studying in the apartment next to me.”

Test has strayed from original purpose

Joseph Safdieh, MD, an assistant dean for clinical curriculum and director of the medical student neurology clerkship for the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, sees the move as positive overall.

“We should not be using any single metric to define or describe our students’ overall profile,” he said in an interview.

“This has been a very significant anxiety point for our medical students for quite a number of years,” Dr. Safdieh said. “They were frustrated that their entire 4 years of medical school seemingly came down to one number.”

The test was created originally as one of three parts of licensure, he pointed out.

“Over the past 10 or 15 years, the exam has morphed to become a litmus test for very specific residency programs,” he said.

However, Dr. Safdieh has concerns that Step 2 will cultivate the same anxiety and may get too big a spotlight without the Step 1 metric, “although one could argue that test does more accurately reflect clinical material,” he said.

He also worries that students who have selected a specialty by the time they take Step 2 may find late in the game that they are less competitive in their field than they thought they were and may have to make a last-minute switch.

Dr. Safdieh said he thinks Step 2 will be next to go the pass/fail route. In reading between the lines of the announcement, he believes the test cosponsors didn’t make both pass/fail at once because it would have been “a nuclear bomb to the system.”

He credited the cosponsors with making what he called a “bold and momentous decision to initiate radical change in the overall transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education.”

Dr. Safdieh added that few in medicine were expecting Wednesday’s announcement.

“I think many of us were expecting them to go to quartile grading, not to go this far,” he said.

Dr. Safdieh suggested that, among those who may see downstream effects from the pass/fail move are offshore schools, such as those in the Caribbean. “Those schools rely on Step 1 to demonstrate that their students are meeting the rigor,” he said. But he hopes that this will lead to more holistic review.

“We’re hoping that this will force change in the system so that residency directors will look at more than just test-taking ability. They’ll look at publications and scholarship, community service and advocacy and performance in medical school,” Dr. Safdieh said.

Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief medical education officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement, “The transition from medical school to residency training is a matter of great concern throughout academic medicine.

“The decision by the NBME and FSMB to change USMLE Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail was very carefully considered to balance student learning and student well-being,” she said. “The medical education community must now work together to identify and implement additional changes to improve the overall UME-GME [undergraduate and graduate medical education] transition system for all stakeholders and the AAMC is committed to helping lead this work.”

Dr. Fathy, Dr. Carmody, and Dr. Safdieh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

News that the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program will change its Step 1 scoring from a 3-digit number to pass/fail starting Jan. 1, 2022, has set off a flurry of shocked responses from students and physicians.

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview that he was “stunned” when he heard the news on Wednesday and said the switch presents “the single biggest opportunity for medical school education reform since the Flexner Report,” which in 1910 established standards for modern medical education.

Numbers will continue for some tests

The USMLE cosponsors – the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) – said that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) exam and Step 3 will continue to be scored numerically. Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) will continue its pass/fail system.

The change was made after Step 1 had been roundly criticized as playing too big a role in the process of becoming a physician and for causing students to study for the test instead of engaging fully in their medical education.

Ramie Fathy, a third-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, currently studying for Step 1, said in an interview that it would have been nice personally to have the pass/fail choice, but he predicts both good and unintended consequences in the change.

The positive news, Mr. Fathy said, is that less emphasis will be put on the Step 1 test, which includes memorizing basic science details that may or not be relevant depending on later specialty choice.

“It’s not necessarily measuring what the test makers intended, which was whether or not a student can understand and apply basic science concepts to the practice of medicine,” he said.

“The current system encourages students to get as high a score as possible, which – after a certain point – translates to memorizing many little details that become increasingly less practically relevant,” Mr. Fathy said.

Pressure may move elsewhere?

However, Mr. Fathy worries that, without a scoring system to help decide who stands out in Step 1, residency program directors will depend more on the reputation of candidates’ medical school and the clout of the person writing a letter of recommendation – factors that are often influenced by family resources and social standing. That could wedge a further economic divide into the path to becoming a physician.

Mr. Fathy said he and fellow students are watching for information on what the passing bar will be and what happens with Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam. USMLE has promised more information as soon as it is available.

“The question is whether that test will replace Step 1 as the standardized metric of student competency,” Mr. Fathy said, which would put more pressure on students further down the medical path.

Will Step 2 anxiety increase?

Dr. Carmody agreed that there is the danger that students now will spend their time studying for Step 2 CK at the expense of other parts of their education.

Meaningful reform will depend on the pass/fail move being coupled with other reforms, most importantly application caps, said Dr. Carmody, who teaches preclinical medical students and works with the residency program.

He has been blogging about Step 1 pass/fail for the past year.

Currently students can apply for as many residencies as they can pay for and Carmody said the number of applications per student has been rising over the past decade.

“That puts program directors under an impossible burden,” he said. “With our Step 1-based system, there’s significant inequality in the number of interviews people get. Programs end up overinviting the same group of people who look good on paper.”

People outside that group respond by sending more applications than they need to just to get a few interviews, Dr. Carmody added.

With caps, students would have an incentive to apply to only those programs in which they had a sincere interest, he said. Program directors also would then be better able to evaluate each application.

Switching Step 1 to pass/fail may have some effect on medical school burnout, Dr. Carmody said.

“It’s one thing to work hard when you’re on call and your patients depend on it,” he said. “But I would have a hard time staying up late every night studying something that I know in my heart is not going to help my patients, but I have to do it because I have to do better than the person who’s studying in the apartment next to me.”

Test has strayed from original purpose

Joseph Safdieh, MD, an assistant dean for clinical curriculum and director of the medical student neurology clerkship for the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, sees the move as positive overall.

“We should not be using any single metric to define or describe our students’ overall profile,” he said in an interview.

“This has been a very significant anxiety point for our medical students for quite a number of years,” Dr. Safdieh said. “They were frustrated that their entire 4 years of medical school seemingly came down to one number.”

The test was created originally as one of three parts of licensure, he pointed out.

“Over the past 10 or 15 years, the exam has morphed to become a litmus test for very specific residency programs,” he said.

However, Dr. Safdieh has concerns that Step 2 will cultivate the same anxiety and may get too big a spotlight without the Step 1 metric, “although one could argue that test does more accurately reflect clinical material,” he said.

He also worries that students who have selected a specialty by the time they take Step 2 may find late in the game that they are less competitive in their field than they thought they were and may have to make a last-minute switch.

Dr. Safdieh said he thinks Step 2 will be next to go the pass/fail route. In reading between the lines of the announcement, he believes the test cosponsors didn’t make both pass/fail at once because it would have been “a nuclear bomb to the system.”

He credited the cosponsors with making what he called a “bold and momentous decision to initiate radical change in the overall transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education.”

Dr. Safdieh added that few in medicine were expecting Wednesday’s announcement.

“I think many of us were expecting them to go to quartile grading, not to go this far,” he said.

Dr. Safdieh suggested that, among those who may see downstream effects from the pass/fail move are offshore schools, such as those in the Caribbean. “Those schools rely on Step 1 to demonstrate that their students are meeting the rigor,” he said. But he hopes that this will lead to more holistic review.

“We’re hoping that this will force change in the system so that residency directors will look at more than just test-taking ability. They’ll look at publications and scholarship, community service and advocacy and performance in medical school,” Dr. Safdieh said.

Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief medical education officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement, “The transition from medical school to residency training is a matter of great concern throughout academic medicine.

“The decision by the NBME and FSMB to change USMLE Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail was very carefully considered to balance student learning and student well-being,” she said. “The medical education community must now work together to identify and implement additional changes to improve the overall UME-GME [undergraduate and graduate medical education] transition system for all stakeholders and the AAMC is committed to helping lead this work.”

Dr. Fathy, Dr. Carmody, and Dr. Safdieh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

News that the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program will change its Step 1 scoring from a 3-digit number to pass/fail starting Jan. 1, 2022, has set off a flurry of shocked responses from students and physicians.

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview that he was “stunned” when he heard the news on Wednesday and said the switch presents “the single biggest opportunity for medical school education reform since the Flexner Report,” which in 1910 established standards for modern medical education.

Numbers will continue for some tests

The USMLE cosponsors – the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) – said that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) exam and Step 3 will continue to be scored numerically. Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) will continue its pass/fail system.

The change was made after Step 1 had been roundly criticized as playing too big a role in the process of becoming a physician and for causing students to study for the test instead of engaging fully in their medical education.

Ramie Fathy, a third-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, currently studying for Step 1, said in an interview that it would have been nice personally to have the pass/fail choice, but he predicts both good and unintended consequences in the change.

The positive news, Mr. Fathy said, is that less emphasis will be put on the Step 1 test, which includes memorizing basic science details that may or not be relevant depending on later specialty choice.

“It’s not necessarily measuring what the test makers intended, which was whether or not a student can understand and apply basic science concepts to the practice of medicine,” he said.

“The current system encourages students to get as high a score as possible, which – after a certain point – translates to memorizing many little details that become increasingly less practically relevant,” Mr. Fathy said.

Pressure may move elsewhere?

However, Mr. Fathy worries that, without a scoring system to help decide who stands out in Step 1, residency program directors will depend more on the reputation of candidates’ medical school and the clout of the person writing a letter of recommendation – factors that are often influenced by family resources and social standing. That could wedge a further economic divide into the path to becoming a physician.

Mr. Fathy said he and fellow students are watching for information on what the passing bar will be and what happens with Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam. USMLE has promised more information as soon as it is available.

“The question is whether that test will replace Step 1 as the standardized metric of student competency,” Mr. Fathy said, which would put more pressure on students further down the medical path.

Will Step 2 anxiety increase?

Dr. Carmody agreed that there is the danger that students now will spend their time studying for Step 2 CK at the expense of other parts of their education.

Meaningful reform will depend on the pass/fail move being coupled with other reforms, most importantly application caps, said Dr. Carmody, who teaches preclinical medical students and works with the residency program.

He has been blogging about Step 1 pass/fail for the past year.

Currently students can apply for as many residencies as they can pay for and Carmody said the number of applications per student has been rising over the past decade.

“That puts program directors under an impossible burden,” he said. “With our Step 1-based system, there’s significant inequality in the number of interviews people get. Programs end up overinviting the same group of people who look good on paper.”

People outside that group respond by sending more applications than they need to just to get a few interviews, Dr. Carmody added.

With caps, students would have an incentive to apply to only those programs in which they had a sincere interest, he said. Program directors also would then be better able to evaluate each application.

Switching Step 1 to pass/fail may have some effect on medical school burnout, Dr. Carmody said.

“It’s one thing to work hard when you’re on call and your patients depend on it,” he said. “But I would have a hard time staying up late every night studying something that I know in my heart is not going to help my patients, but I have to do it because I have to do better than the person who’s studying in the apartment next to me.”

Test has strayed from original purpose

Joseph Safdieh, MD, an assistant dean for clinical curriculum and director of the medical student neurology clerkship for the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, sees the move as positive overall.

“We should not be using any single metric to define or describe our students’ overall profile,” he said in an interview.

“This has been a very significant anxiety point for our medical students for quite a number of years,” Dr. Safdieh said. “They were frustrated that their entire 4 years of medical school seemingly came down to one number.”

The test was created originally as one of three parts of licensure, he pointed out.

“Over the past 10 or 15 years, the exam has morphed to become a litmus test for very specific residency programs,” he said.

However, Dr. Safdieh has concerns that Step 2 will cultivate the same anxiety and may get too big a spotlight without the Step 1 metric, “although one could argue that test does more accurately reflect clinical material,” he said.

He also worries that students who have selected a specialty by the time they take Step 2 may find late in the game that they are less competitive in their field than they thought they were and may have to make a last-minute switch.

Dr. Safdieh said he thinks Step 2 will be next to go the pass/fail route. In reading between the lines of the announcement, he believes the test cosponsors didn’t make both pass/fail at once because it would have been “a nuclear bomb to the system.”

He credited the cosponsors with making what he called a “bold and momentous decision to initiate radical change in the overall transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education.”

Dr. Safdieh added that few in medicine were expecting Wednesday’s announcement.

“I think many of us were expecting them to go to quartile grading, not to go this far,” he said.

Dr. Safdieh suggested that, among those who may see downstream effects from the pass/fail move are offshore schools, such as those in the Caribbean. “Those schools rely on Step 1 to demonstrate that their students are meeting the rigor,” he said. But he hopes that this will lead to more holistic review.

“We’re hoping that this will force change in the system so that residency directors will look at more than just test-taking ability. They’ll look at publications and scholarship, community service and advocacy and performance in medical school,” Dr. Safdieh said.

Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief medical education officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement, “The transition from medical school to residency training is a matter of great concern throughout academic medicine.

“The decision by the NBME and FSMB to change USMLE Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail was very carefully considered to balance student learning and student well-being,” she said. “The medical education community must now work together to identify and implement additional changes to improve the overall UME-GME [undergraduate and graduate medical education] transition system for all stakeholders and the AAMC is committed to helping lead this work.”

Dr. Fathy, Dr. Carmody, and Dr. Safdieh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

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

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

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

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

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

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Only 26% of pulmonologists report that they are happy at work, with about twice as many happy outside of work, according to Medscape’s Pulmonologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020. Dermatologists are the happiest at work, at 41%, and neurologists are the least happy, at 18%.

According to the report, which surveyed more than 15,000 physicians from various specialties, 29% of pulmonologists report feeling burned out, with 5% reporting feeling depressed and 12% both depressed and burned out. An overabundance of bureaucratic tasks is the lead contributor to burnout (52%), according to pulmonologists, followed by lack of respect from administrators, employers, colleagues, and staff (38%) and spending too many hours at work (35%).

Pulmonologists report that exercise is the biggest way they cope with burnout (47%), compared with neurologists, for example, who ranked it third at 40%. Other ways they deal with burnout include isolating themselves from others (43%) and playing or listening to music (38%).

Among depressed or burned-out pulmonologists, 70% reported not planning to seek professional help or seeking it in the past, while 12% reported currently seeking professional help. Furthermore, almost half of pulmonologists (48%) say they’re unlikely to participate in workplace programs.

When asked for reasons they wouldn’t seek professional help, 60% said they deal with it without professional help and 49% didn’t think their symptoms were severe enough, while 31% were simply too busy.

The slideshow of the full report is available on Medscape.com.

[email protected]

Only 26% of pulmonologists report that they are happy at work, with about twice as many happy outside of work, according to Medscape’s Pulmonologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020. Dermatologists are the happiest at work, at 41%, and neurologists are the least happy, at 18%.

According to the report, which surveyed more than 15,000 physicians from various specialties, 29% of pulmonologists report feeling burned out, with 5% reporting feeling depressed and 12% both depressed and burned out. An overabundance of bureaucratic tasks is the lead contributor to burnout (52%), according to pulmonologists, followed by lack of respect from administrators, employers, colleagues, and staff (38%) and spending too many hours at work (35%).

Pulmonologists report that exercise is the biggest way they cope with burnout (47%), compared with neurologists, for example, who ranked it third at 40%. Other ways they deal with burnout include isolating themselves from others (43%) and playing or listening to music (38%).

Among depressed or burned-out pulmonologists, 70% reported not planning to seek professional help or seeking it in the past, while 12% reported currently seeking professional help. Furthermore, almost half of pulmonologists (48%) say they’re unlikely to participate in workplace programs.

When asked for reasons they wouldn’t seek professional help, 60% said they deal with it without professional help and 49% didn’t think their symptoms were severe enough, while 31% were simply too busy.

The slideshow of the full report is available on Medscape.com.

[email protected]

Only 26% of pulmonologists report that they are happy at work, with about twice as many happy outside of work, according to Medscape’s Pulmonologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020. Dermatologists are the happiest at work, at 41%, and neurologists are the least happy, at 18%.

According to the report, which surveyed more than 15,000 physicians from various specialties, 29% of pulmonologists report feeling burned out, with 5% reporting feeling depressed and 12% both depressed and burned out. An overabundance of bureaucratic tasks is the lead contributor to burnout (52%), according to pulmonologists, followed by lack of respect from administrators, employers, colleagues, and staff (38%) and spending too many hours at work (35%).

Pulmonologists report that exercise is the biggest way they cope with burnout (47%), compared with neurologists, for example, who ranked it third at 40%. Other ways they deal with burnout include isolating themselves from others (43%) and playing or listening to music (38%).

Among depressed or burned-out pulmonologists, 70% reported not planning to seek professional help or seeking it in the past, while 12% reported currently seeking professional help. Furthermore, almost half of pulmonologists (48%) say they’re unlikely to participate in workplace programs.

When asked for reasons they wouldn’t seek professional help, 60% said they deal with it without professional help and 49% didn’t think their symptoms were severe enough, while 31% were simply too busy.

The slideshow of the full report is available on Medscape.com.

[email protected]

When it comes to physician happiness both in and outside the workplace, oncologists are about average, according to Medscape’s 2020 Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report.

Oncologists landed in the middle of the pack among all physicians surveyed for happiness. Rheumatologists were most likely to report being very or extremely happy outside of work (60%) and neurologists were least likely to do so (44%), but about half of oncologists (51%) reported being very/extremely happy outside of work. For happiness at work, dermatologists topped the list (41%), neurologists came in last (18%), and oncologists remained in the middle (29%).

Oncologists were average when it came to burnout as well, matching the rate of overall physicians. Specifically, 32% of oncologists were burned out, 4% were depressed, and 9% were both burned out and depressed.

The most commonly reported factors contributing to burnout among oncologists were an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks (74%), spending too many hours at work (42%), and a lack of respect from colleagues in the workplace (36%).

Exercise was the most commonly reported way oncologists dealt with burnout (51%), followed by talking with family and friends (49%), and isolating themselves from others (38%). In addition, 57% of oncologists took 3-4 weeks’ vacation, compared with 44% of physicians overall; 29% of oncologists took less than 3 weeks’ vacation.

About 18% of oncologists said they had contemplated suicide, and 1% said they’d attempted it; 72% said they’d never had thoughts of suicide. Just under one-quarter of oncologists said they were currently seeking professional help or were planning to seek help for symptoms of depression and/or burnout.

“The survey results are concerning on several levels,” Maurie Markman, MD, of Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“First, the data suggest a considerable number of oncologists are simply burned out from the day-to-day bureaucracy (paperwork, etc.) of medical practice, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual care delivered. This likely impacts the willingness to continue in this role. Second, one must be concerned for the future recruitment of physicians to become clinical oncologists. And finally, one must wonder about the impact of these concerning figures on the quality of care being provided to cancer patients.”

This survey was conducted from June 25 to Sept. 19, 2019, and involved 15,181 physicians. Oncologists made up 1% of the survey pool.

[email protected]

When it comes to physician happiness both in and outside the workplace, oncologists are about average, according to Medscape’s 2020 Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report.

Oncologists landed in the middle of the pack among all physicians surveyed for happiness. Rheumatologists were most likely to report being very or extremely happy outside of work (60%) and neurologists were least likely to do so (44%), but about half of oncologists (51%) reported being very/extremely happy outside of work. For happiness at work, dermatologists topped the list (41%), neurologists came in last (18%), and oncologists remained in the middle (29%).

Oncologists were average when it came to burnout as well, matching the rate of overall physicians. Specifically, 32% of oncologists were burned out, 4% were depressed, and 9% were both burned out and depressed.

The most commonly reported factors contributing to burnout among oncologists were an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks (74%), spending too many hours at work (42%), and a lack of respect from colleagues in the workplace (36%).

Exercise was the most commonly reported way oncologists dealt with burnout (51%), followed by talking with family and friends (49%), and isolating themselves from others (38%). In addition, 57% of oncologists took 3-4 weeks’ vacation, compared with 44% of physicians overall; 29% of oncologists took less than 3 weeks’ vacation.

About 18% of oncologists said they had contemplated suicide, and 1% said they’d attempted it; 72% said they’d never had thoughts of suicide. Just under one-quarter of oncologists said they were currently seeking professional help or were planning to seek help for symptoms of depression and/or burnout.

“The survey results are concerning on several levels,” Maurie Markman, MD, of Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“First, the data suggest a considerable number of oncologists are simply burned out from the day-to-day bureaucracy (paperwork, etc.) of medical practice, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual care delivered. This likely impacts the willingness to continue in this role. Second, one must be concerned for the future recruitment of physicians to become clinical oncologists. And finally, one must wonder about the impact of these concerning figures on the quality of care being provided to cancer patients.”

This survey was conducted from June 25 to Sept. 19, 2019, and involved 15,181 physicians. Oncologists made up 1% of the survey pool.

[email protected]

When it comes to physician happiness both in and outside the workplace, oncologists are about average, according to Medscape’s 2020 Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report.

Oncologists landed in the middle of the pack among all physicians surveyed for happiness. Rheumatologists were most likely to report being very or extremely happy outside of work (60%) and neurologists were least likely to do so (44%), but about half of oncologists (51%) reported being very/extremely happy outside of work. For happiness at work, dermatologists topped the list (41%), neurologists came in last (18%), and oncologists remained in the middle (29%).

Oncologists were average when it came to burnout as well, matching the rate of overall physicians. Specifically, 32% of oncologists were burned out, 4% were depressed, and 9% were both burned out and depressed.

The most commonly reported factors contributing to burnout among oncologists were an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks (74%), spending too many hours at work (42%), and a lack of respect from colleagues in the workplace (36%).

Exercise was the most commonly reported way oncologists dealt with burnout (51%), followed by talking with family and friends (49%), and isolating themselves from others (38%). In addition, 57% of oncologists took 3-4 weeks’ vacation, compared with 44% of physicians overall; 29% of oncologists took less than 3 weeks’ vacation.

About 18% of oncologists said they had contemplated suicide, and 1% said they’d attempted it; 72% said they’d never had thoughts of suicide. Just under one-quarter of oncologists said they were currently seeking professional help or were planning to seek help for symptoms of depression and/or burnout.

“The survey results are concerning on several levels,” Maurie Markman, MD, of Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“First, the data suggest a considerable number of oncologists are simply burned out from the day-to-day bureaucracy (paperwork, etc.) of medical practice, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual care delivered. This likely impacts the willingness to continue in this role. Second, one must be concerned for the future recruitment of physicians to become clinical oncologists. And finally, one must wonder about the impact of these concerning figures on the quality of care being provided to cancer patients.”

This survey was conducted from June 25 to Sept. 19, 2019, and involved 15,181 physicians. Oncologists made up 1% of the survey pool.

[email protected]

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.