User login
Hospitals Cash In on a Private Equity-Backed Trend: Concierge Physician Care
Nonprofit hospitals created largely to serve the poor are adding concierge physician practices, charging patients annual membership fees of $2,000 or more for easier access to their doctors.
It’s a trend that began decades ago with physician practices. Thousands of doctors have shifted to the concierge model, in which they can increase their income while decreasing their patient load.
Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, University Hospitals in the Cleveland area, and Baptist Health in Miami are among the large hospital systems offering concierge physician services. The fees, which can exceed $4,000 a year, are in addition to copayments, deductibles, and other charges not paid by patients’ insurance plans.
Critics of concierge medicine say the practice exacerbates primary care shortages, ensuring access only for the affluent, while driving up health care costs. But for tax-exempt hospitals, the financial benefits can be twofold.
“Hospitals are attracted to physicians that offer concierge services because their patients do not come with bad debts or a need for charity care, and most of them have private insurance which pays the hospital very well,” said Gerard Anderson, a hospital finance expert at Johns Hopkins University.
“They are the ideal patient, from the hospitals’ perspective.”
Concierge physicians typically limit their practices to a few hundred patients, compared with a couple of thousand for a traditional primary care doctor, so they can promise immediate access and longer visits.
“Every time we see these models expand, we are contracting the availability of primary care doctors for the general population,” said Jewel Mullen, associate dean for health equity at the University of Texas-Austin’s Dell Medical School. The former Connecticut health commissioner said concierge doctors join large hospital systems because of the institutions’ reputations, while hospitals sign up concierge physicians to ensure referrals to specialists and inpatient care. “It helps hospitals secure a bigger piece of their market,” she said.
Concierge physicians typically promise same-day or next-day appointments. Many provide patients their mobile phone number.
Aaron Klein, who oversees the concierge physician practices at Baptist Health, said the program was initially intended to serve donors.
“High-end donors wanted to make sure they have doctors to care for them,” he said.
Baptist opened its concierge program in 2019 and now has three practices across South Florida, where patients pay $2,500 a year.
“My philosophy is: It’s better to give world-class care to a few hundred patients rather than provide inadequate care to a few thousand patients,” Klein said.
Concierge physician practices started more than 20 years ago, mainly in upscale areas such as Boca Raton, Florida, and La Jolla, California. They catered mostly to wealthy retirees willing to pay extra for better physician access. Some of the first physician practices to enter the business were backed by private equity firms.
One of the largest, Boca Raton-based MDVIP, has more than 1,100 physicians and more than 390,000 patients. It was started in 2000, and since 2014 private equity firms have owned a majority stake in the company.
Some concierge physicians say their more attentive care means healthier patients. A study published last year by researchers at the University of California-Berkeley and University of Pennsylvania found no impact on mortality rates. What the study did find: higher costs.
Using Medicare claims data, the researchers found that concierge medicine enrollment corresponded with a 30%-50% increase in total health care spending by patients.
For hospitals, “this is an extension of them consolidating the market,” said Adam Leive, a study co-author and an assistant professor of public policy at UC Berkeley. Inova Health Care Services in Fairfax, Virginia, one of the state’s largest tax-exempt hospital chains, employs 18 concierge doctors, who each handle no more than 400 patients. Those patients pay $2,200 a year for the privilege.
George Salem, 70, of McLean, Virginia, has been a patient in Inova’s concierge practice for several years along with his wife. Earlier this year he slammed his finger in a hotel door, he said. As soon as he got home, he called his physician, who saw him immediately and stitched up the wound. He said he sees his doctor about 10 to 12 times a year.
“I loved my internist before, but it was impossible to get to see him,” Salem said. Immediate access to his doctor “very much gives me peace of mind,” he said.
Craig Cheifetz, a vice president at Inova who oversees the concierge program, said the hospital system took interest in the model after MDVIP began moving aggressively into the Washington, D.C., suburbs about a decade ago. Today, Inova’s program has 6,000 patients.
Cheifetz disputes the charge that concierge physician programs exacerbate primary care shortages. The model keeps doctors who were considering retiring early in the business with a lighter caseload, he said. And the fees amount to no more than a few dollars a day — about what some people spend on coffee, he said.
“Inova has an incredible primary care network for those who can’t afford the concierge care,” he said. “We are still providing all that is necessary in primary care for those who need it.”
Some hospitals are starting concierge physician practices far from their home locations. For example, Tampa General Hospital in Florida last year opened a concierge practice in upper-middle-class Palm Beach Gardens, a roughly three-hour drive from Tampa. Mount Sinai Health System in New York runs a concierge physician practice in West Palm Beach.
NCH Healthcare System in Naples, Florida, employs 12 concierge physicians who treat about 3,000 patients total. “We found a need in this community for those who wanted a more personalized health care experience,” said James Brinkert, regional administrator for the system. Members pay an annual fee of at least $3,500.
NCH patients whose doctors convert to concierge and who don’t want to pay the membership fee are referred to other primary care practices or to urgent care, Brinkert said.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF .
Nonprofit hospitals created largely to serve the poor are adding concierge physician practices, charging patients annual membership fees of $2,000 or more for easier access to their doctors.
It’s a trend that began decades ago with physician practices. Thousands of doctors have shifted to the concierge model, in which they can increase their income while decreasing their patient load.
Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, University Hospitals in the Cleveland area, and Baptist Health in Miami are among the large hospital systems offering concierge physician services. The fees, which can exceed $4,000 a year, are in addition to copayments, deductibles, and other charges not paid by patients’ insurance plans.
Critics of concierge medicine say the practice exacerbates primary care shortages, ensuring access only for the affluent, while driving up health care costs. But for tax-exempt hospitals, the financial benefits can be twofold.
“Hospitals are attracted to physicians that offer concierge services because their patients do not come with bad debts or a need for charity care, and most of them have private insurance which pays the hospital very well,” said Gerard Anderson, a hospital finance expert at Johns Hopkins University.
“They are the ideal patient, from the hospitals’ perspective.”
Concierge physicians typically limit their practices to a few hundred patients, compared with a couple of thousand for a traditional primary care doctor, so they can promise immediate access and longer visits.
“Every time we see these models expand, we are contracting the availability of primary care doctors for the general population,” said Jewel Mullen, associate dean for health equity at the University of Texas-Austin’s Dell Medical School. The former Connecticut health commissioner said concierge doctors join large hospital systems because of the institutions’ reputations, while hospitals sign up concierge physicians to ensure referrals to specialists and inpatient care. “It helps hospitals secure a bigger piece of their market,” she said.
Concierge physicians typically promise same-day or next-day appointments. Many provide patients their mobile phone number.
Aaron Klein, who oversees the concierge physician practices at Baptist Health, said the program was initially intended to serve donors.
“High-end donors wanted to make sure they have doctors to care for them,” he said.
Baptist opened its concierge program in 2019 and now has three practices across South Florida, where patients pay $2,500 a year.
“My philosophy is: It’s better to give world-class care to a few hundred patients rather than provide inadequate care to a few thousand patients,” Klein said.
Concierge physician practices started more than 20 years ago, mainly in upscale areas such as Boca Raton, Florida, and La Jolla, California. They catered mostly to wealthy retirees willing to pay extra for better physician access. Some of the first physician practices to enter the business were backed by private equity firms.
One of the largest, Boca Raton-based MDVIP, has more than 1,100 physicians and more than 390,000 patients. It was started in 2000, and since 2014 private equity firms have owned a majority stake in the company.
Some concierge physicians say their more attentive care means healthier patients. A study published last year by researchers at the University of California-Berkeley and University of Pennsylvania found no impact on mortality rates. What the study did find: higher costs.
Using Medicare claims data, the researchers found that concierge medicine enrollment corresponded with a 30%-50% increase in total health care spending by patients.
For hospitals, “this is an extension of them consolidating the market,” said Adam Leive, a study co-author and an assistant professor of public policy at UC Berkeley. Inova Health Care Services in Fairfax, Virginia, one of the state’s largest tax-exempt hospital chains, employs 18 concierge doctors, who each handle no more than 400 patients. Those patients pay $2,200 a year for the privilege.
George Salem, 70, of McLean, Virginia, has been a patient in Inova’s concierge practice for several years along with his wife. Earlier this year he slammed his finger in a hotel door, he said. As soon as he got home, he called his physician, who saw him immediately and stitched up the wound. He said he sees his doctor about 10 to 12 times a year.
“I loved my internist before, but it was impossible to get to see him,” Salem said. Immediate access to his doctor “very much gives me peace of mind,” he said.
Craig Cheifetz, a vice president at Inova who oversees the concierge program, said the hospital system took interest in the model after MDVIP began moving aggressively into the Washington, D.C., suburbs about a decade ago. Today, Inova’s program has 6,000 patients.
Cheifetz disputes the charge that concierge physician programs exacerbate primary care shortages. The model keeps doctors who were considering retiring early in the business with a lighter caseload, he said. And the fees amount to no more than a few dollars a day — about what some people spend on coffee, he said.
“Inova has an incredible primary care network for those who can’t afford the concierge care,” he said. “We are still providing all that is necessary in primary care for those who need it.”
Some hospitals are starting concierge physician practices far from their home locations. For example, Tampa General Hospital in Florida last year opened a concierge practice in upper-middle-class Palm Beach Gardens, a roughly three-hour drive from Tampa. Mount Sinai Health System in New York runs a concierge physician practice in West Palm Beach.
NCH Healthcare System in Naples, Florida, employs 12 concierge physicians who treat about 3,000 patients total. “We found a need in this community for those who wanted a more personalized health care experience,” said James Brinkert, regional administrator for the system. Members pay an annual fee of at least $3,500.
NCH patients whose doctors convert to concierge and who don’t want to pay the membership fee are referred to other primary care practices or to urgent care, Brinkert said.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF .
Nonprofit hospitals created largely to serve the poor are adding concierge physician practices, charging patients annual membership fees of $2,000 or more for easier access to their doctors.
It’s a trend that began decades ago with physician practices. Thousands of doctors have shifted to the concierge model, in which they can increase their income while decreasing their patient load.
Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, University Hospitals in the Cleveland area, and Baptist Health in Miami are among the large hospital systems offering concierge physician services. The fees, which can exceed $4,000 a year, are in addition to copayments, deductibles, and other charges not paid by patients’ insurance plans.
Critics of concierge medicine say the practice exacerbates primary care shortages, ensuring access only for the affluent, while driving up health care costs. But for tax-exempt hospitals, the financial benefits can be twofold.
“Hospitals are attracted to physicians that offer concierge services because their patients do not come with bad debts or a need for charity care, and most of them have private insurance which pays the hospital very well,” said Gerard Anderson, a hospital finance expert at Johns Hopkins University.
“They are the ideal patient, from the hospitals’ perspective.”
Concierge physicians typically limit their practices to a few hundred patients, compared with a couple of thousand for a traditional primary care doctor, so they can promise immediate access and longer visits.
“Every time we see these models expand, we are contracting the availability of primary care doctors for the general population,” said Jewel Mullen, associate dean for health equity at the University of Texas-Austin’s Dell Medical School. The former Connecticut health commissioner said concierge doctors join large hospital systems because of the institutions’ reputations, while hospitals sign up concierge physicians to ensure referrals to specialists and inpatient care. “It helps hospitals secure a bigger piece of their market,” she said.
Concierge physicians typically promise same-day or next-day appointments. Many provide patients their mobile phone number.
Aaron Klein, who oversees the concierge physician practices at Baptist Health, said the program was initially intended to serve donors.
“High-end donors wanted to make sure they have doctors to care for them,” he said.
Baptist opened its concierge program in 2019 and now has three practices across South Florida, where patients pay $2,500 a year.
“My philosophy is: It’s better to give world-class care to a few hundred patients rather than provide inadequate care to a few thousand patients,” Klein said.
Concierge physician practices started more than 20 years ago, mainly in upscale areas such as Boca Raton, Florida, and La Jolla, California. They catered mostly to wealthy retirees willing to pay extra for better physician access. Some of the first physician practices to enter the business were backed by private equity firms.
One of the largest, Boca Raton-based MDVIP, has more than 1,100 physicians and more than 390,000 patients. It was started in 2000, and since 2014 private equity firms have owned a majority stake in the company.
Some concierge physicians say their more attentive care means healthier patients. A study published last year by researchers at the University of California-Berkeley and University of Pennsylvania found no impact on mortality rates. What the study did find: higher costs.
Using Medicare claims data, the researchers found that concierge medicine enrollment corresponded with a 30%-50% increase in total health care spending by patients.
For hospitals, “this is an extension of them consolidating the market,” said Adam Leive, a study co-author and an assistant professor of public policy at UC Berkeley. Inova Health Care Services in Fairfax, Virginia, one of the state’s largest tax-exempt hospital chains, employs 18 concierge doctors, who each handle no more than 400 patients. Those patients pay $2,200 a year for the privilege.
George Salem, 70, of McLean, Virginia, has been a patient in Inova’s concierge practice for several years along with his wife. Earlier this year he slammed his finger in a hotel door, he said. As soon as he got home, he called his physician, who saw him immediately and stitched up the wound. He said he sees his doctor about 10 to 12 times a year.
“I loved my internist before, but it was impossible to get to see him,” Salem said. Immediate access to his doctor “very much gives me peace of mind,” he said.
Craig Cheifetz, a vice president at Inova who oversees the concierge program, said the hospital system took interest in the model after MDVIP began moving aggressively into the Washington, D.C., suburbs about a decade ago. Today, Inova’s program has 6,000 patients.
Cheifetz disputes the charge that concierge physician programs exacerbate primary care shortages. The model keeps doctors who were considering retiring early in the business with a lighter caseload, he said. And the fees amount to no more than a few dollars a day — about what some people spend on coffee, he said.
“Inova has an incredible primary care network for those who can’t afford the concierge care,” he said. “We are still providing all that is necessary in primary care for those who need it.”
Some hospitals are starting concierge physician practices far from their home locations. For example, Tampa General Hospital in Florida last year opened a concierge practice in upper-middle-class Palm Beach Gardens, a roughly three-hour drive from Tampa. Mount Sinai Health System in New York runs a concierge physician practice in West Palm Beach.
NCH Healthcare System in Naples, Florida, employs 12 concierge physicians who treat about 3,000 patients total. “We found a need in this community for those who wanted a more personalized health care experience,” said James Brinkert, regional administrator for the system. Members pay an annual fee of at least $3,500.
NCH patients whose doctors convert to concierge and who don’t want to pay the membership fee are referred to other primary care practices or to urgent care, Brinkert said.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF .
Physicians Received $12 Billion from Drug, Device Makers in Less Than 10 Years
A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.
Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.
Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.
Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.
Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.
The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.
The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.
The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.
“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.
“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.
Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”
The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.
“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.
“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million
Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.
Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.
But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.
Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products
The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.
The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.
Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.
The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care
Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.
“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.
One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”
Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.
For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.
Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.
In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.
The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”
Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.
Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.
Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.
Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.
Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.
The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.
The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.
The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.
“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.
“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.
Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”
The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.
“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.
“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million
Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.
Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.
But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.
Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products
The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.
The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.
Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.
The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care
Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.
“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.
One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”
Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.
For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.
Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.
In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.
The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”
Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.
Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.
Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.
Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.
Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.
The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.
The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.
The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.
“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.
“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.
Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”
The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.
“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.
“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million
Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.
Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.
But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.
Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products
The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.
The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.
Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.
The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care
Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.
“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.
One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”
Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.
For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.
Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.
In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.
The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”
Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA
A Banned Chemical That Is Still Causing Cancer
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.
So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.
PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.
But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.
PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.
This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.
What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.
In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.
In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.
Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.
The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.
Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.
This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.
This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.
After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.
But the key finding is deaths due to cancer. After adjustment, cancer deaths occurred four times as frequently among those in the high PBDE group, and that is a statistically significant difference.
To be fair, cancer deaths were rare in this cohort. The vast majority of people did not die of anything during the follow-up period regardless of PBDE level. But the data are strongly suggestive of the carcinogenicity of these chemicals.
I should also point out that the researchers are linking the PBDE level at a single time point to all these future events. If PBDE levels remain relatively stable within an individual over time, that’s fine, but if they tend to vary with intake of different foods for example, this would not be captured and would actually lead to an underestimation of the cancer risk.
The researchers also didn’t have granular enough data to determine the type of cancer, but they do show that rates are similar between men and women, which might point away from the more sex-specific cancer etiologies. Clearly, some more work is needed.
Of course, I started this piece by telling you that these chemicals are already pretty much banned in the United States. What are we supposed to do about these findings? Studies have examined the primary ongoing sources of PBDE in our environment and it seems like most of our exposure will be coming from the food we eat due to that biomagnification thing: high-fat fish, meat and dairy products, and fish oil supplements. It may be worth some investigation into the relative adulteration of these products with this new old carcinogen.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.
So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.
PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.
But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.
PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.
This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.
What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.
In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.
In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.
Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.
The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.
Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.
This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.
This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.
After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.
But the key finding is deaths due to cancer. After adjustment, cancer deaths occurred four times as frequently among those in the high PBDE group, and that is a statistically significant difference.
To be fair, cancer deaths were rare in this cohort. The vast majority of people did not die of anything during the follow-up period regardless of PBDE level. But the data are strongly suggestive of the carcinogenicity of these chemicals.
I should also point out that the researchers are linking the PBDE level at a single time point to all these future events. If PBDE levels remain relatively stable within an individual over time, that’s fine, but if they tend to vary with intake of different foods for example, this would not be captured and would actually lead to an underestimation of the cancer risk.
The researchers also didn’t have granular enough data to determine the type of cancer, but they do show that rates are similar between men and women, which might point away from the more sex-specific cancer etiologies. Clearly, some more work is needed.
Of course, I started this piece by telling you that these chemicals are already pretty much banned in the United States. What are we supposed to do about these findings? Studies have examined the primary ongoing sources of PBDE in our environment and it seems like most of our exposure will be coming from the food we eat due to that biomagnification thing: high-fat fish, meat and dairy products, and fish oil supplements. It may be worth some investigation into the relative adulteration of these products with this new old carcinogen.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.
So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.
PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.
But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.
PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.
This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.
What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.
In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.
In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.
Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.
The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.
Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.
This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.
This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.
After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.
But the key finding is deaths due to cancer. After adjustment, cancer deaths occurred four times as frequently among those in the high PBDE group, and that is a statistically significant difference.
To be fair, cancer deaths were rare in this cohort. The vast majority of people did not die of anything during the follow-up period regardless of PBDE level. But the data are strongly suggestive of the carcinogenicity of these chemicals.
I should also point out that the researchers are linking the PBDE level at a single time point to all these future events. If PBDE levels remain relatively stable within an individual over time, that’s fine, but if they tend to vary with intake of different foods for example, this would not be captured and would actually lead to an underestimation of the cancer risk.
The researchers also didn’t have granular enough data to determine the type of cancer, but they do show that rates are similar between men and women, which might point away from the more sex-specific cancer etiologies. Clearly, some more work is needed.
Of course, I started this piece by telling you that these chemicals are already pretty much banned in the United States. What are we supposed to do about these findings? Studies have examined the primary ongoing sources of PBDE in our environment and it seems like most of our exposure will be coming from the food we eat due to that biomagnification thing: high-fat fish, meat and dairy products, and fish oil supplements. It may be worth some investigation into the relative adulteration of these products with this new old carcinogen.
Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Money, Ethnicity, and Access Linked to Cervical Cancer Disparities
These findings come from analyses of insurance data gathered via the Cervical Cancer Geo-Analyzer tool, a publicly available online instrument designed to provide visual representation of recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer burden across metropolitan statistical areas in the United States over multiple years.
[Reporting the findings of] “this study is the first step to optimize healthcare resources allocations, advocate for policy changes that will minimize access barriers, and tailor education for modern treatment options to help reduce and improve outcomes for cervical cancer in US patients,” said Tara Castellano, MD, an author and presenter of this new research, at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.
Seeing Cancer Cases
Dr. Castellano and colleagues previously reported that the Geo-Analyzer tool effectively provides quantified evidence of cervical cancer disease burden and graphic representation of geographical variations across the United States for both incident and recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer.
In the current analysis, Dr. Castellano, of Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans, discussed potential factors related to cervical cancer incidence and geographic variations.
The study builds on previous studies that have shown that Black and Hispanic women have longer time to treatment and worse cervical cancer outcomes than White women.
For example, in a study published in the International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, Marilyn Huang, MD, and colleagues from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, and other centers in Miami looked at time to treatment in a diverse population of 274 women starting therapy for cervical cancer.
They found that insurance type (private, public, or none) contributed to delay in treatment initiation regardless of the treatment modality, and that the patient’s language and institution of diagnosis also influenced time to treatment.
In a separate scientific poster presented at SGO 2024, Dr. Castellano and colleagues reported that, among women with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, the median time to treatment was 7 days longer for both Hispanic and Black women, compared with non-Hispanic White women. In addition, Black women had a 7-day longer time to receiving their first therapy for advanced disease. All of these differences were statistically significant.
Dr. Castellano told this news organization that the time-to-treatment disparities in the endometrial cancer study were determined by diagnostic codes and the timing of insurance claims.
Reasons for the disparities may include more limited access to care and structural and systemic biases in the healthcare systems where the majority of Black and Hispanic patients live, she said.
Insurance Database
In the new study on cervical cancer, Dr. Castellano and her team defined cervical cancer burden as prevalent cervical cancer diagnosis per 100,000 eligible women enrolled in a commercial insurance plan, Medicaid, or Medicare Advantage. Recurrent or metastatic cancer was determined to be the proportion of patients with cervical cancer who initiated systemic therapy.
The goals of the study were to provide a visualization of geographical distribution of cervical cancer in the US, and to quantify associations between early or advanced cancers with screening rates, poverty level, race/ethnicity, and access to brachytherapy.
The administrative claims database queried for the study included information on 75,521 women (median age 53) with a first diagnosis of cervical cancer from 2015 through 2022, and 14,033 women with recurrent or metastatic malignancies (median age 59 years).
Distribution of cases was higher in the South compared with in other US regions (37% vs approximately 20% for other regions).
Looking at the association between screening rates and disease burden from 2017 through 2022, the Geo-Analyzer showed that higher screening rates were significantly associated with decreased burden of new cases only in the South, whereas higher screening rates were associated with lower recurrent/metastatic disease burden in the Midwest and South, but a higher disease burden in the West.
In all regions, there was a significant association between decreased early cancer burden in areas with high percentages of women of Asian heritage, and significantly increased burden in areas with large populations of women of Hispanic origin.
The only significant association of race/ethnicity with recurrent/metastatic burden was a decrease in the Midwest in populations with large Asian populations.
An analysis of the how poverty levels affected screening and disease burden showed that in areas with a high percentage of low-income households there were significant associations with decreased cervical cancer screening and higher burden of newly diagnosed cases.
Poverty levels were significantly associated with recurrent/metastatic cancers only in the South.
The investigators also found that the presence of one or more brachytherapy centers within a ZIP-3 region (that is, a large geographic area designated by the first 3 digits of ZIP codes rather than 5-digit city codes) was associated with a 2.7% reduction in recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer burden (P less than .001).
Demographic Marker?
Reasons for disparities are complex and may involve a combination of inadequate health literacy and social and economic circumstances, said Cesar Castro, MD, commenting on the new cervical cancer study.
He noted in an interview that “the concept that a single Pap smear is often insufficient to capture precancerous changes, and hence the need for serial testing every 3 years, can be lost on individuals who also have competing challenges securing paychecks and/or dependent care. Historical barriers such as perceptions of the underlying cause of cervical cancer, the HPV virus, being a sexually transmitted disease and hence a taboo subject, also underpin decision-making. These sentiments have also fueled resistance towards HPV vaccination in young girls and boys.”
Dr. Castro, who is Program Director for Gynecologic Oncology at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, pointed out that treatments for cervical cancer often involve surgery or a combination of chemotherapy and radiation, and that side effects from these interventions may be especially disruptive to the lives of women who are breadwinners or caregivers for their families.
“These are the shackles that poverty places on many Black and Hispanic women notably in under-resourced regions domestically and globally,” he said.
The study was supported by Seagen and Genmab. Dr. Castellano disclosed consulting fees from GSK and Nykode and grant support from BMS. Dr. Castro reported no relevant conflicts of interest and was not involved in either of the studies presented at the meeting.
These findings come from analyses of insurance data gathered via the Cervical Cancer Geo-Analyzer tool, a publicly available online instrument designed to provide visual representation of recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer burden across metropolitan statistical areas in the United States over multiple years.
[Reporting the findings of] “this study is the first step to optimize healthcare resources allocations, advocate for policy changes that will minimize access barriers, and tailor education for modern treatment options to help reduce and improve outcomes for cervical cancer in US patients,” said Tara Castellano, MD, an author and presenter of this new research, at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.
Seeing Cancer Cases
Dr. Castellano and colleagues previously reported that the Geo-Analyzer tool effectively provides quantified evidence of cervical cancer disease burden and graphic representation of geographical variations across the United States for both incident and recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer.
In the current analysis, Dr. Castellano, of Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans, discussed potential factors related to cervical cancer incidence and geographic variations.
The study builds on previous studies that have shown that Black and Hispanic women have longer time to treatment and worse cervical cancer outcomes than White women.
For example, in a study published in the International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, Marilyn Huang, MD, and colleagues from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, and other centers in Miami looked at time to treatment in a diverse population of 274 women starting therapy for cervical cancer.
They found that insurance type (private, public, or none) contributed to delay in treatment initiation regardless of the treatment modality, and that the patient’s language and institution of diagnosis also influenced time to treatment.
In a separate scientific poster presented at SGO 2024, Dr. Castellano and colleagues reported that, among women with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, the median time to treatment was 7 days longer for both Hispanic and Black women, compared with non-Hispanic White women. In addition, Black women had a 7-day longer time to receiving their first therapy for advanced disease. All of these differences were statistically significant.
Dr. Castellano told this news organization that the time-to-treatment disparities in the endometrial cancer study were determined by diagnostic codes and the timing of insurance claims.
Reasons for the disparities may include more limited access to care and structural and systemic biases in the healthcare systems where the majority of Black and Hispanic patients live, she said.
Insurance Database
In the new study on cervical cancer, Dr. Castellano and her team defined cervical cancer burden as prevalent cervical cancer diagnosis per 100,000 eligible women enrolled in a commercial insurance plan, Medicaid, or Medicare Advantage. Recurrent or metastatic cancer was determined to be the proportion of patients with cervical cancer who initiated systemic therapy.
The goals of the study were to provide a visualization of geographical distribution of cervical cancer in the US, and to quantify associations between early or advanced cancers with screening rates, poverty level, race/ethnicity, and access to brachytherapy.
The administrative claims database queried for the study included information on 75,521 women (median age 53) with a first diagnosis of cervical cancer from 2015 through 2022, and 14,033 women with recurrent or metastatic malignancies (median age 59 years).
Distribution of cases was higher in the South compared with in other US regions (37% vs approximately 20% for other regions).
Looking at the association between screening rates and disease burden from 2017 through 2022, the Geo-Analyzer showed that higher screening rates were significantly associated with decreased burden of new cases only in the South, whereas higher screening rates were associated with lower recurrent/metastatic disease burden in the Midwest and South, but a higher disease burden in the West.
In all regions, there was a significant association between decreased early cancer burden in areas with high percentages of women of Asian heritage, and significantly increased burden in areas with large populations of women of Hispanic origin.
The only significant association of race/ethnicity with recurrent/metastatic burden was a decrease in the Midwest in populations with large Asian populations.
An analysis of the how poverty levels affected screening and disease burden showed that in areas with a high percentage of low-income households there were significant associations with decreased cervical cancer screening and higher burden of newly diagnosed cases.
Poverty levels were significantly associated with recurrent/metastatic cancers only in the South.
The investigators also found that the presence of one or more brachytherapy centers within a ZIP-3 region (that is, a large geographic area designated by the first 3 digits of ZIP codes rather than 5-digit city codes) was associated with a 2.7% reduction in recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer burden (P less than .001).
Demographic Marker?
Reasons for disparities are complex and may involve a combination of inadequate health literacy and social and economic circumstances, said Cesar Castro, MD, commenting on the new cervical cancer study.
He noted in an interview that “the concept that a single Pap smear is often insufficient to capture precancerous changes, and hence the need for serial testing every 3 years, can be lost on individuals who also have competing challenges securing paychecks and/or dependent care. Historical barriers such as perceptions of the underlying cause of cervical cancer, the HPV virus, being a sexually transmitted disease and hence a taboo subject, also underpin decision-making. These sentiments have also fueled resistance towards HPV vaccination in young girls and boys.”
Dr. Castro, who is Program Director for Gynecologic Oncology at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, pointed out that treatments for cervical cancer often involve surgery or a combination of chemotherapy and radiation, and that side effects from these interventions may be especially disruptive to the lives of women who are breadwinners or caregivers for their families.
“These are the shackles that poverty places on many Black and Hispanic women notably in under-resourced regions domestically and globally,” he said.
The study was supported by Seagen and Genmab. Dr. Castellano disclosed consulting fees from GSK and Nykode and grant support from BMS. Dr. Castro reported no relevant conflicts of interest and was not involved in either of the studies presented at the meeting.
These findings come from analyses of insurance data gathered via the Cervical Cancer Geo-Analyzer tool, a publicly available online instrument designed to provide visual representation of recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer burden across metropolitan statistical areas in the United States over multiple years.
[Reporting the findings of] “this study is the first step to optimize healthcare resources allocations, advocate for policy changes that will minimize access barriers, and tailor education for modern treatment options to help reduce and improve outcomes for cervical cancer in US patients,” said Tara Castellano, MD, an author and presenter of this new research, at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.
Seeing Cancer Cases
Dr. Castellano and colleagues previously reported that the Geo-Analyzer tool effectively provides quantified evidence of cervical cancer disease burden and graphic representation of geographical variations across the United States for both incident and recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer.
In the current analysis, Dr. Castellano, of Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans, discussed potential factors related to cervical cancer incidence and geographic variations.
The study builds on previous studies that have shown that Black and Hispanic women have longer time to treatment and worse cervical cancer outcomes than White women.
For example, in a study published in the International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, Marilyn Huang, MD, and colleagues from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, and other centers in Miami looked at time to treatment in a diverse population of 274 women starting therapy for cervical cancer.
They found that insurance type (private, public, or none) contributed to delay in treatment initiation regardless of the treatment modality, and that the patient’s language and institution of diagnosis also influenced time to treatment.
In a separate scientific poster presented at SGO 2024, Dr. Castellano and colleagues reported that, among women with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, the median time to treatment was 7 days longer for both Hispanic and Black women, compared with non-Hispanic White women. In addition, Black women had a 7-day longer time to receiving their first therapy for advanced disease. All of these differences were statistically significant.
Dr. Castellano told this news organization that the time-to-treatment disparities in the endometrial cancer study were determined by diagnostic codes and the timing of insurance claims.
Reasons for the disparities may include more limited access to care and structural and systemic biases in the healthcare systems where the majority of Black and Hispanic patients live, she said.
Insurance Database
In the new study on cervical cancer, Dr. Castellano and her team defined cervical cancer burden as prevalent cervical cancer diagnosis per 100,000 eligible women enrolled in a commercial insurance plan, Medicaid, or Medicare Advantage. Recurrent or metastatic cancer was determined to be the proportion of patients with cervical cancer who initiated systemic therapy.
The goals of the study were to provide a visualization of geographical distribution of cervical cancer in the US, and to quantify associations between early or advanced cancers with screening rates, poverty level, race/ethnicity, and access to brachytherapy.
The administrative claims database queried for the study included information on 75,521 women (median age 53) with a first diagnosis of cervical cancer from 2015 through 2022, and 14,033 women with recurrent or metastatic malignancies (median age 59 years).
Distribution of cases was higher in the South compared with in other US regions (37% vs approximately 20% for other regions).
Looking at the association between screening rates and disease burden from 2017 through 2022, the Geo-Analyzer showed that higher screening rates were significantly associated with decreased burden of new cases only in the South, whereas higher screening rates were associated with lower recurrent/metastatic disease burden in the Midwest and South, but a higher disease burden in the West.
In all regions, there was a significant association between decreased early cancer burden in areas with high percentages of women of Asian heritage, and significantly increased burden in areas with large populations of women of Hispanic origin.
The only significant association of race/ethnicity with recurrent/metastatic burden was a decrease in the Midwest in populations with large Asian populations.
An analysis of the how poverty levels affected screening and disease burden showed that in areas with a high percentage of low-income households there were significant associations with decreased cervical cancer screening and higher burden of newly diagnosed cases.
Poverty levels were significantly associated with recurrent/metastatic cancers only in the South.
The investigators also found that the presence of one or more brachytherapy centers within a ZIP-3 region (that is, a large geographic area designated by the first 3 digits of ZIP codes rather than 5-digit city codes) was associated with a 2.7% reduction in recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer burden (P less than .001).
Demographic Marker?
Reasons for disparities are complex and may involve a combination of inadequate health literacy and social and economic circumstances, said Cesar Castro, MD, commenting on the new cervical cancer study.
He noted in an interview that “the concept that a single Pap smear is often insufficient to capture precancerous changes, and hence the need for serial testing every 3 years, can be lost on individuals who also have competing challenges securing paychecks and/or dependent care. Historical barriers such as perceptions of the underlying cause of cervical cancer, the HPV virus, being a sexually transmitted disease and hence a taboo subject, also underpin decision-making. These sentiments have also fueled resistance towards HPV vaccination in young girls and boys.”
Dr. Castro, who is Program Director for Gynecologic Oncology at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, pointed out that treatments for cervical cancer often involve surgery or a combination of chemotherapy and radiation, and that side effects from these interventions may be especially disruptive to the lives of women who are breadwinners or caregivers for their families.
“These are the shackles that poverty places on many Black and Hispanic women notably in under-resourced regions domestically and globally,” he said.
The study was supported by Seagen and Genmab. Dr. Castellano disclosed consulting fees from GSK and Nykode and grant support from BMS. Dr. Castro reported no relevant conflicts of interest and was not involved in either of the studies presented at the meeting.
FROM SGO 2024
Time Is Money: Should Physicians Be Compensated for EHR Engagement?
Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.
Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.
“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”
The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.
“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time
Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.
“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”
Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.
In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.
Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.
“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
Addressing the Issue
Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.
At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).
Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.
However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.
“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences
The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.
“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”
But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.
“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.
Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.
“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”
The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.
“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time
Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.
“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”
Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.
In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.
Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.
“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
Addressing the Issue
Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.
At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).
Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.
However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.
“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences
The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.
“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”
But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.
“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.
Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.
“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”
The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.
“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time
Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.
“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”
Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.
In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.
Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.
“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
Addressing the Issue
Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.
At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).
Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.
However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.
“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences
The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.
“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”
But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.
“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Active Surveillance for Cancer Doesn’t Increase Malpractice Risk
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
- Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and or from 1990 to 2022.
- Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
- Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.
TAKEAWAY:
- Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
- In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
- The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
- No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.
IN PRACTICE:
“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers did not provide any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
- Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and or from 1990 to 2022.
- Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
- Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.
TAKEAWAY:
- Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
- In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
- The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
- No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.
IN PRACTICE:
“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers did not provide any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Although practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network consider active surveillance an effective strategy for managing low-risk cancers, some physicians have been hesitant to incorporate it into their practice because of concerns about potential litigation.
- Researchers used Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases to identify malpractice trends involving active surveillance related to thyroid, prostate, kidney, and or from 1990 to 2022.
- Data included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions.
- Researchers identified 201 malpractice cases across all low-risk cancers in the initial screening. Out of these, only five cases, all , involved active surveillance as the point of allegation.
TAKEAWAY:
- Out of the five prostate cancer cases, two involved incarcerated patients with Gleason 6 very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma that was managed with active surveillance by their urologists.
- In these two cases, the patients claimed that active surveillance violated their 8th Amendment right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment. In both cases, there was no metastasis or spread detected and the court determined active surveillance management was performed under national standards.
- The other three cases involved litigation claiming that active surveillance was not explicitly recommended as a treatment option for patients who all had very-low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma and had reported negligence from an intervention ( or cryoablation). However, all cases had documented informed consent for active surveillance.
- No relevant cases were found relating to active surveillance in any other type of cancer, whether in an initial diagnosis or recurrence.
IN PRACTICE:
“This data should bolster physicians’ confidence in recommending active surveillance for their patients when it is an appropriate option,” study coauthor Timothy Daskivich, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a statement . “Active surveillance maximizes quality of life and avoids unnecessary overtreatment, and it does not increase medicolegal liability to physicians, as detailed in the case dismissals identified in this study.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Samuel Chang, JD, with Athene Law LLP, San Francisco, was recently published in Annals of Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The Westlaw and Lexis databases may not contain all cases or decisions issued by a state regulatory agency, like a medical board. Federal and state decisions from lower courts may not be published and available. Also, settlements outside of court or suits filed and not pursued were not included in the data.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers did not provide any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Time Is Money: Should Physicians Be Compensated for EHR Engagement?
Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.
“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”
The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared to prepandemic portal use.
“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time
Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.
“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi said. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”
Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.
In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.
Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.
“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
Addressing the Issue
Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touchpoint and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.
At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).
Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.
However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.
“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences
The ever-expanding use of EHR is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.
“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”
But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.
“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.
“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”
The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared to prepandemic portal use.
“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time
Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.
“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi said. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”
Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.
In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.
Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.
“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
Addressing the Issue
Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touchpoint and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.
At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).
Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.
However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.
“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences
The ever-expanding use of EHR is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.
“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”
But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.
“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.
“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”
The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared to prepandemic portal use.
“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time
Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.
“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi said. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”
Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.
In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.
Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.
“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
Addressing the Issue
Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touchpoint and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.
At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).
Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.
However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.
“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences
The ever-expanding use of EHR is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.
“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”
But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.
“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Understanding and Promoting Compassion in Medicine
In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.
The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
Compassion Fatigue
Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.
Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors
Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.
Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
Organizational and Personal Values
There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.
These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.
In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.
The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
Compassion Fatigue
Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.
Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors
Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.
Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
Organizational and Personal Values
There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.
These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.
In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.
The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
Compassion Fatigue
Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.
Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors
Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.
Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
Organizational and Personal Values
There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.
These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.
In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New Guidance for the Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer
The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?
The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?
Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?
For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?
The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.
Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.
We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.
We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?
The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.
It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?
We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.
It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.
Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.
We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?
A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.
It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.
Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.
We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.
Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.
Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?
In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.
Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.
The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.
Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.
Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?
The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?
Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?
For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?
The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.
Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.
We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.
We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?
The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.
It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?
We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.
It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.
Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.
We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?
A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.
It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.
Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.
We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.
Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.
Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?
In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.
Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.
The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.
Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.
Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) 7th International Consensus Conference Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer will soon be released. This news organization discussed the new guidelines with Fatima Cardoso, MD, director of the Breast Unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. Dr. Cardoso is president of the ABC Global Alliance and chair of the guidelines committee. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Where do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines come from?
The 7th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer was held in November 2023. This is an international conference that takes place every 2 years. At the conference, we discuss new data that have come out in the past 2 years regarding advanced and metastatic breast cancer, and whether they should impact the guidelines or not. We look at whether there is any new treatment that is ready for clinical practice that wasn’t available 2 years ago. We look at whether there is anything else that has changed in the past 2 years.
How do the ABC International Consensus Guidelines differ from other guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), or the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)?
Patients and patient advocates are members of the consensus panel where we discuss important issues around this disease and how to manage it. We also do not discuss drugs exclusively because there are other needs for patients with advanced breast cancer, and we issue recommendations regarding the global care of these patients.
Can you tell me about the other issues discussed in the guidelines besides drugs?
For example, in the more general recommendations, we revisited the proper definition of endocrine resistance. A lot of clinical trials are based on selecting a population that is considered to be endocrine sensitive or endocrine resistant, but the definition is very heterogeneous. We have updated the definition because there have been quite a few advances in this particular subtype of cancer. This [new] definition of endocrine resistance and sensitivity will be used and implemented in the different clinical trials, allowing for a better interpretation of the results, with clear impact on clinical practice.
What subtype of metastatic breast cancer had the biggest advances in terms of drugs in the guidelines?
The subtype that had the biggest advances in the new guidelines is the hormonal-dependent breast cancer, the ER-positive, HER2-negative. For that particular subtype, we have new drugs either already approved or in the process of being evaluated. Some of them have been approved in the United States but not yet in Europe by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We are starting to discuss whether these drugs should be approved, and if they are, how we should use them. It is relevant to know what the cost-effectiveness is of each new treatment, as well and the balance between efficacy and toxicity. Sometimes data are too preliminary and we need longer follow-up or more important endpoints, such as survival.
Elacestrant is one of the drugs that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is very controversial because the benefit it provides on progression-free survival is modest and we still lack data on survival. So, there was a discussion on whether to consider this drug as an option or wait until we have survival data. The majority on the panel thought we could consider elacestrant as a potential new option, when we do not have other endocrine options available.
We issued a recommendation on a drug that is not FDA approved because we think the FDA is going to approve it quite soon. The drug is capivasertib and it blocks the PIK3CA pathway. [Editor’s note: The drug has since been approved by the FDA.] We have a drug that targets this pathway, alpelisib, but it is quite toxic so it is not widely used. Capivasertib has a better toxicity profile so we believe it could be a good addition to our armamentarium for this particular subtype of breast cancer.
We have lots of new data about the antibody-drug conjugates, the ADCs. Initially, we had more data for HER2-positive and triple-negative disease, but now studies have been done to show the value of the ADCs also in the ER-positive, HER2-negative subtype, and so they are now options. In particular, we have trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-low disease. Most of the HER2-low tumors are also hormone receptor–positive.
The ABC Guidelines discuss tough clinical situations. Can you explain?
The guidelines also discuss issues that in clinical practice are quite difficult because we don’t have strong data. There are certain tough clinical situations. One example is how to treat a woman who has metastatic disease and is pregnant. We discuss the possibilities of treatment in that situation and also what other support these patients need. We discussed that the only available therapy we can use is chemotherapy. We cannot use endocrine therapy, nor biological agents such as anti-HER2 agents and immunotherapy. So, this raises a lot of concerns for how to treat these women without hurting the fetus. But in these guidelines, we discuss other needs of these patients. It’s a hot topic in the US and we did issue a recommendation: that in some situations where the life of the mother may be at risk because we are not able to provide the most adequate treatment, then they should be free to choose to terminate the pregnancy.
It is important to realize that you can’t give most of the new treatments — and ones that have an impact on survival — to a woman when she is pregnant.
What other tough clinical situations do you discuss in the new guidelines?
We discuss someone who has metastatic disease and is HIV-positive. Can we use CDK4/6 inhibitors? Can we use immunotherapy? What are the recent data? We have very little data to show that we can possibly use immunotherapy, but we do not have any safety data regarding the CDK4/6 inhibitors.
It’s important to note that people who are HIV-positive tend to have a worse mortality rate from cancer and also suffer from more toxicity. Very often, there is a need to reduce the doses of the treatments we are going to give. The guidelines provide guidance on these issues so that in clinical practice, doctors can have some help managing these difficult situations.
Another example of a tough clinical situation is how to treat an elderly, frail patient who has metastatic disease. We discuss what geriatric evaluations you need to perform before deciding the treatment. We discuss the need very often to reduce the starting dose and then adapt according to what the patient can tolerate.
We have discussed quite a lot of topics that are really patient-oriented and clinically oriented. The aim is to help everyone in clinical practice to provide the best available care.
Do you want to expand a bit on the elderly, frail patient and what you have in the guidelines about that?
A very important message is that it doesn’t matter what age your ID card says; it’s the biological age that is important. There are some people who are in their 80s, but they are very fit and they have a very active, normal life. There are other people who are in their 50s and they struggle. It’s important to perform a geriatric evaluation to determine the probability of tolerating a cancer treatment, and we normally use a simple tool called G8. If this tool shows fragility, then it is crucial to have a full geriatric assessment and a full physical exam.
It’s also very important to look for drug-drug interactions in the elderly because these patients often take many different therapies for other diseases.
Another issue is chronic undertreatment in the elderly. If you look just at chronological age and you don’t provide the optimal treatment, there will be increased mortality.
We also recommend starting elderly patients on a lower dose. There are not strong data for that, but we think it is clinical common sense to start at a lower dose. Then, if there is good tolerance, you can move to the usual dose.
Often, the elderly are excluded from clinical trials. Some of the clinical trials for some of the newer agents have included elderly patients. For example, there were some elderly patients in the CDK4/6 inhibitor trials. We know that these patients can receive these treatments with a reduction in dose.
Very frail elderly patients are often excluded from clinical trials. If we continue to do that, we will never know how to treat them.
Is there anything you would like to add about the ABC Guidelines that we haven’t talked about?
In the general statement of the guidelines, we mention two things that I think are important for people to know. The first is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of cancer patients, particularly those with advanced disease, were not offered access to ventilators. Remember, we didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone, so there were exclusion criteria, and one of the exclusion criteria was having cancer. Cancer patients shouldn’t be excluded from having life-saving treatment based solely on the cancer diagnosis. There are many different cancers and many different stages of the disease.
Access to intensive care units is sometimes needed temporarily for a patient with advanced breast cancer. The new treatments, such as immunotherapies and ADCs, can have significant and life-threatening toxicities. You can die from some of these side effects. All over the world, this is a difficult situation because of the bias among many healthcare providers regarding access to intensive care units for cancer patients. It’s a bias we are fighting against.
The second thing we discuss in the beginning of the new guidelines is what is happening to cancer patients during periods of war or conflict. For example, in Ukraine, many of the patients were able to run away and go to another country, but all their health information was lost because the hospitals were destroyed. Patients arrive in a new country and they don’t have any information on the type of cancer they have nor the type of treatment they were undergoing. It was very difficult, for example, for the doctors in Poland to know how to continue to treat the Ukrainian patients. So, in the guidelines, we discuss how we can find a way to ensure that a patient has a copy of their important health data.
Dr. Cardoso, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:Personal financial interest in form of consultancy role for: Amgen; Astellas/Medivation; AstraZeneca; Celgene; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; GE Oncology; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Iqvia; Macrogenics; Medscape; Merck-Sharp; Merus BV; Mylan; Mundipharma; Novartis; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; prIME Oncology; Roche; Sanofi; Samsung Bioepis; Seagen; Teva; Touchime.
Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol Myers Squibb; Bayer; Daiichi; Eisai; Fresenius GmbH; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Ipsen; Incyte; Nektar Therapeutics; Nerviano; Novartis; Macrogenics; Medigene; MedImmune; Merck; Millennium; Pfizer; Pierre-Fabre; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; Sonus; Tesaro; Tigris; Wilex; Wyeth.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Few Childhood Cancer Survivors Get Recommended Screenings
Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.
“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.
For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.
The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.
“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”
The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ.
Changes in Adherence
The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.
Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.
Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.
In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.
During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.
Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.
Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.
“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.”
Survivorship Care Plans
Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.
“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.
Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.
However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.
“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.
“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.
For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.
The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.
“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”
The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ.
Changes in Adherence
The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.
Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.
Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.
In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.
During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.
Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.
Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.
“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.”
Survivorship Care Plans
Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.
“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.
Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.
However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.
“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.
“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.
For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.
The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.
“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”
The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ.
Changes in Adherence
The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.
Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.
Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.
In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.
During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.
Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.
Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.
“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.”
Survivorship Care Plans
Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.
“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.
Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.
However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.
“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.