User login
Rural Coverage a Key to Meeting Primary Care Demand
WASHINGTON – Rural family medicine residency programs are doing what they can to attract more primary care physicians to underserved areas and keep them there, but they are faced with an ever-larger task. Rural communities will be the most hard-pressed to meet growing demand for physicians as more Americans gain health insurance and seek a regular medical care provider, said several experts at a forum on Capitol Hill sponsored by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
The majority of the nation’s rural areas are underserved by physicians, and in particular by primary care.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the number of medical school students choosing primary care residencies still lags far behind those electing to pursue other specialties, said Dr. Ted Epperly, president and chief executive officer of the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho in Boise.
"It all starts with making sure we have a pipeline developed of training broad, well-trained, comprehensivists," said Dr. Epperly. Generalism is the most important attribute needed for primary care, but "what we’ve created is a system of subspecialization, so at a time when we need a complex skill set to be able to handle problems, we’ve micro-detailed our physicians into looking at the left kidney," Dr. Epperly said.
Some 62 million Americans, or 20% of the nation’s population, live in a rural area, said Amy Elizondo, vice president of program services at the National Rural Health Association. Only 9% of the nation’s physicians practice in rural areas, and 77% of the 2,050 rural counties in America are designated as Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). A shortage area is one in which there is one or fewer primary care physicians per 3,500 people, according to HRSA. The agency estimates that, as of Nov. 14, there were 5,800 total primary care shortage areas in the United States, which can be located in urban or rural areas. It would take an additional 7,500 primary care physicians to end the shortages in all of those areas, said HRSA.
Physician organizations and HRSA, among others, have been trying to figure out how to draw more primary care doctors to those areas. The Affordable Care Act established a grant program for states looking to study their workforce issues, but so far HRSA has not been given any money by Congress to fund any grants. When the State Health Workforce Development Grants were announced in 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services said that almost $6 million would be made available to 26 states.
The ACA also established a National Health Care Workforce Commission, but that, too, has never been funded, although members were appointed in 2010 by the head of the Government Accountability Office. The GAO was given the authority under the health law to appoint the commission’s members.
"Right now we don’t have a unified policy or approach to addressing our workforce," said Dr. Stan Kozakowski, director of medical education at the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Dr. Kozakowski said that another way to boost the numbers of rural physicians was to increase training slots devoted to family medicine and, more specifically, residents trained in delivering medicine in rural areas.
A number of family medicine residency programs have developed a rural training track, which requires residents to spend 1 year in the larger academic medical center, followed by 2 years in the rural area, which may or may not have a hospital. Currently, there are 26 active rural training track programs. All are strapped for funding because fewer than half are eligible to receive traditional graduate medical education funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said Dr. Randall Longenecker, professor of family medicine and assistant dean for rural and underserved programsat the Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine in Athens.
But the programs have proven to be effective, said Dr. Longenecker, who is also the executive director of the new nonprofit RTT Collaborative. He cited data showing that, 3 years after graduation, almost half of recent rural training track participants had continued to practice in rural areas and about a third were serving in professional shortage areas.
"The biggest challenge for retention is getting people to live in a rural place," said Dr. Longenecker, adding that, by living and training in the area for 2 years, physicians learn how to live there.
"The longer they stay, the longer they stay," agreed Dr. Epperly. He said that 85% of the physicians trained through the rural sites of the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho end up practicing in those areas. Another key is to help spouses become acclimated, which his program does through group outreach, Dr. Epperly said.
He noted that 35 of the nation’s 165 medical schools have started to look at training for rural areas in "a more serious way."
In addition, 13 states are contemplating developing rural track training, said Dr. Longenecker.
On Twitter @aliciaault
WASHINGTON – Rural family medicine residency programs are doing what they can to attract more primary care physicians to underserved areas and keep them there, but they are faced with an ever-larger task. Rural communities will be the most hard-pressed to meet growing demand for physicians as more Americans gain health insurance and seek a regular medical care provider, said several experts at a forum on Capitol Hill sponsored by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
The majority of the nation’s rural areas are underserved by physicians, and in particular by primary care.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the number of medical school students choosing primary care residencies still lags far behind those electing to pursue other specialties, said Dr. Ted Epperly, president and chief executive officer of the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho in Boise.
"It all starts with making sure we have a pipeline developed of training broad, well-trained, comprehensivists," said Dr. Epperly. Generalism is the most important attribute needed for primary care, but "what we’ve created is a system of subspecialization, so at a time when we need a complex skill set to be able to handle problems, we’ve micro-detailed our physicians into looking at the left kidney," Dr. Epperly said.
Some 62 million Americans, or 20% of the nation’s population, live in a rural area, said Amy Elizondo, vice president of program services at the National Rural Health Association. Only 9% of the nation’s physicians practice in rural areas, and 77% of the 2,050 rural counties in America are designated as Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). A shortage area is one in which there is one or fewer primary care physicians per 3,500 people, according to HRSA. The agency estimates that, as of Nov. 14, there were 5,800 total primary care shortage areas in the United States, which can be located in urban or rural areas. It would take an additional 7,500 primary care physicians to end the shortages in all of those areas, said HRSA.
Physician organizations and HRSA, among others, have been trying to figure out how to draw more primary care doctors to those areas. The Affordable Care Act established a grant program for states looking to study their workforce issues, but so far HRSA has not been given any money by Congress to fund any grants. When the State Health Workforce Development Grants were announced in 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services said that almost $6 million would be made available to 26 states.
The ACA also established a National Health Care Workforce Commission, but that, too, has never been funded, although members were appointed in 2010 by the head of the Government Accountability Office. The GAO was given the authority under the health law to appoint the commission’s members.
"Right now we don’t have a unified policy or approach to addressing our workforce," said Dr. Stan Kozakowski, director of medical education at the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Dr. Kozakowski said that another way to boost the numbers of rural physicians was to increase training slots devoted to family medicine and, more specifically, residents trained in delivering medicine in rural areas.
A number of family medicine residency programs have developed a rural training track, which requires residents to spend 1 year in the larger academic medical center, followed by 2 years in the rural area, which may or may not have a hospital. Currently, there are 26 active rural training track programs. All are strapped for funding because fewer than half are eligible to receive traditional graduate medical education funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said Dr. Randall Longenecker, professor of family medicine and assistant dean for rural and underserved programsat the Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine in Athens.
But the programs have proven to be effective, said Dr. Longenecker, who is also the executive director of the new nonprofit RTT Collaborative. He cited data showing that, 3 years after graduation, almost half of recent rural training track participants had continued to practice in rural areas and about a third were serving in professional shortage areas.
"The biggest challenge for retention is getting people to live in a rural place," said Dr. Longenecker, adding that, by living and training in the area for 2 years, physicians learn how to live there.
"The longer they stay, the longer they stay," agreed Dr. Epperly. He said that 85% of the physicians trained through the rural sites of the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho end up practicing in those areas. Another key is to help spouses become acclimated, which his program does through group outreach, Dr. Epperly said.
He noted that 35 of the nation’s 165 medical schools have started to look at training for rural areas in "a more serious way."
In addition, 13 states are contemplating developing rural track training, said Dr. Longenecker.
On Twitter @aliciaault
WASHINGTON – Rural family medicine residency programs are doing what they can to attract more primary care physicians to underserved areas and keep them there, but they are faced with an ever-larger task. Rural communities will be the most hard-pressed to meet growing demand for physicians as more Americans gain health insurance and seek a regular medical care provider, said several experts at a forum on Capitol Hill sponsored by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
The majority of the nation’s rural areas are underserved by physicians, and in particular by primary care.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the number of medical school students choosing primary care residencies still lags far behind those electing to pursue other specialties, said Dr. Ted Epperly, president and chief executive officer of the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho in Boise.
"It all starts with making sure we have a pipeline developed of training broad, well-trained, comprehensivists," said Dr. Epperly. Generalism is the most important attribute needed for primary care, but "what we’ve created is a system of subspecialization, so at a time when we need a complex skill set to be able to handle problems, we’ve micro-detailed our physicians into looking at the left kidney," Dr. Epperly said.
Some 62 million Americans, or 20% of the nation’s population, live in a rural area, said Amy Elizondo, vice president of program services at the National Rural Health Association. Only 9% of the nation’s physicians practice in rural areas, and 77% of the 2,050 rural counties in America are designated as Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). A shortage area is one in which there is one or fewer primary care physicians per 3,500 people, according to HRSA. The agency estimates that, as of Nov. 14, there were 5,800 total primary care shortage areas in the United States, which can be located in urban or rural areas. It would take an additional 7,500 primary care physicians to end the shortages in all of those areas, said HRSA.
Physician organizations and HRSA, among others, have been trying to figure out how to draw more primary care doctors to those areas. The Affordable Care Act established a grant program for states looking to study their workforce issues, but so far HRSA has not been given any money by Congress to fund any grants. When the State Health Workforce Development Grants were announced in 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services said that almost $6 million would be made available to 26 states.
The ACA also established a National Health Care Workforce Commission, but that, too, has never been funded, although members were appointed in 2010 by the head of the Government Accountability Office. The GAO was given the authority under the health law to appoint the commission’s members.
"Right now we don’t have a unified policy or approach to addressing our workforce," said Dr. Stan Kozakowski, director of medical education at the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Dr. Kozakowski said that another way to boost the numbers of rural physicians was to increase training slots devoted to family medicine and, more specifically, residents trained in delivering medicine in rural areas.
A number of family medicine residency programs have developed a rural training track, which requires residents to spend 1 year in the larger academic medical center, followed by 2 years in the rural area, which may or may not have a hospital. Currently, there are 26 active rural training track programs. All are strapped for funding because fewer than half are eligible to receive traditional graduate medical education funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said Dr. Randall Longenecker, professor of family medicine and assistant dean for rural and underserved programsat the Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine in Athens.
But the programs have proven to be effective, said Dr. Longenecker, who is also the executive director of the new nonprofit RTT Collaborative. He cited data showing that, 3 years after graduation, almost half of recent rural training track participants had continued to practice in rural areas and about a third were serving in professional shortage areas.
"The biggest challenge for retention is getting people to live in a rural place," said Dr. Longenecker, adding that, by living and training in the area for 2 years, physicians learn how to live there.
"The longer they stay, the longer they stay," agreed Dr. Epperly. He said that 85% of the physicians trained through the rural sites of the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho end up practicing in those areas. Another key is to help spouses become acclimated, which his program does through group outreach, Dr. Epperly said.
He noted that 35 of the nation’s 165 medical schools have started to look at training for rural areas in "a more serious way."
In addition, 13 states are contemplating developing rural track training, said Dr. Longenecker.
On Twitter @aliciaault
FROM AN AAFP BRIEFING
Rural coverage a key to meeting primary care demand
WASHINGTON – Rural family medicine residency programs are doing what they can to attract more primary care physicians to underserved areas and keep them there, but they are faced with an ever-larger task. Rural communities will be the most hard-pressed to meet growing demand for physicians as more Americans gain health insurance and seek a regular medical care provider, said several experts at a forum on Capitol Hill sponsored by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
The majority of the nation’s rural areas are underserved by physicians, and in particular by primary care.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the number of medical school students choosing primary care residencies still lags far behind those electing to pursue other specialties, said Dr. Ted Epperly, president and chief executive officer of the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho in Boise.
"It all starts with making sure we have a pipeline developed of training broad, well-trained, comprehensivists," said Dr. Epperly. Generalism is the most important attribute needed for primary care, but "what we’ve created is a system of subspecialization, so at a time when we need a complex skill set to be able to handle problems, we’ve micro-detailed our physicians into looking at the left kidney," Dr. Epperly said.
Some 62 million Americans, or 20% of the nation’s population, live in a rural area, said Amy Elizondo, vice president of program services at the National Rural Health Association. Only 9% of the nation’s physicians practice in rural areas, and 77% of the 2,050 rural counties in America are designated as Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). A shortage area is one in which there is one or fewer primary care physicians per 3,500 people, according to HRSA. The agency estimates that, as of Nov. 14, there were 5,800 total primary care shortage areas in the United States, which can be located in urban or rural areas. It would take an additional 7,500 primary care physicians to end the shortages in all of those areas, said HRSA.
Physician organizations and HRSA, among others, have been trying to figure out how to draw more primary care doctors to those areas. The Affordable Care Act established a grant program for states looking to study their workforce issues, but so far HRSA has not been given any money by Congress to fund any grants. When the State Health Workforce Development Grants were announced in 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services said that almost $6 million would be made available to 26 states.
The ACA also established a National Health Care Workforce Commission, but that, too, has never been funded, although members were appointed in 2010 by the head of the Government Accountability Office. The GAO was given the authority under the health law to appoint the commission’s members.
"Right now we don’t have a unified policy or approach to addressing our workforce," said Dr. Stan Kozakowski, director of medical education at the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Dr. Kozakowski said that another way to boost the numbers of rural physicians was to increase training slots devoted to family medicine and, more specifically, residents trained in delivering medicine in rural areas.
A number of family medicine residency programs have developed a rural training track, which requires residents to spend 1 year in the larger academic medical center, followed by 2 years in the rural area, which may or may not have a hospital. Currently, there are 26 active rural training track programs. All are strapped for funding because fewer than half are eligible to receive traditional graduate medical education funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said Dr. Randall Longenecker, professor of family medicine and assistant dean for rural and underserved programsat the Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine in Athens.
But the programs have proven to be effective, said Dr. Longenecker, who is also the executive director of the new nonprofit RTT Collaborative. He cited data showing that, 3 years after graduation, almost half of recent rural training track participants had continued to practice in rural areas and about a third were serving in professional shortage areas.
"The biggest challenge for retention is getting people to live in a rural place," said Dr. Longenecker, adding that, by living and training in the area for 2 years, physicians learn how to live there.
"The longer they stay, the longer they stay," agreed Dr. Epperly. He said that 85% of the physicians trained through the rural sites of the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho end up practicing in those areas. Another key is to help spouses become acclimated, which his program does through group outreach, Dr. Epperly said.
He noted that 35 of the nation’s 165 medical schools have started to look at training for rural areas in "a more serious way."
In addition, 13 states are contemplating developing rural track training, said Dr. Longenecker.
On Twitter @aliciaault
WASHINGTON – Rural family medicine residency programs are doing what they can to attract more primary care physicians to underserved areas and keep them there, but they are faced with an ever-larger task. Rural communities will be the most hard-pressed to meet growing demand for physicians as more Americans gain health insurance and seek a regular medical care provider, said several experts at a forum on Capitol Hill sponsored by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
The majority of the nation’s rural areas are underserved by physicians, and in particular by primary care.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the number of medical school students choosing primary care residencies still lags far behind those electing to pursue other specialties, said Dr. Ted Epperly, president and chief executive officer of the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho in Boise.
"It all starts with making sure we have a pipeline developed of training broad, well-trained, comprehensivists," said Dr. Epperly. Generalism is the most important attribute needed for primary care, but "what we’ve created is a system of subspecialization, so at a time when we need a complex skill set to be able to handle problems, we’ve micro-detailed our physicians into looking at the left kidney," Dr. Epperly said.
Some 62 million Americans, or 20% of the nation’s population, live in a rural area, said Amy Elizondo, vice president of program services at the National Rural Health Association. Only 9% of the nation’s physicians practice in rural areas, and 77% of the 2,050 rural counties in America are designated as Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). A shortage area is one in which there is one or fewer primary care physicians per 3,500 people, according to HRSA. The agency estimates that, as of Nov. 14, there were 5,800 total primary care shortage areas in the United States, which can be located in urban or rural areas. It would take an additional 7,500 primary care physicians to end the shortages in all of those areas, said HRSA.
Physician organizations and HRSA, among others, have been trying to figure out how to draw more primary care doctors to those areas. The Affordable Care Act established a grant program for states looking to study their workforce issues, but so far HRSA has not been given any money by Congress to fund any grants. When the State Health Workforce Development Grants were announced in 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services said that almost $6 million would be made available to 26 states.
The ACA also established a National Health Care Workforce Commission, but that, too, has never been funded, although members were appointed in 2010 by the head of the Government Accountability Office. The GAO was given the authority under the health law to appoint the commission’s members.
"Right now we don’t have a unified policy or approach to addressing our workforce," said Dr. Stan Kozakowski, director of medical education at the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Dr. Kozakowski said that another way to boost the numbers of rural physicians was to increase training slots devoted to family medicine and, more specifically, residents trained in delivering medicine in rural areas.
A number of family medicine residency programs have developed a rural training track, which requires residents to spend 1 year in the larger academic medical center, followed by 2 years in the rural area, which may or may not have a hospital. Currently, there are 26 active rural training track programs. All are strapped for funding because fewer than half are eligible to receive traditional graduate medical education funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said Dr. Randall Longenecker, professor of family medicine and assistant dean for rural and underserved programsat the Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine in Athens.
But the programs have proven to be effective, said Dr. Longenecker, who is also the executive director of the new nonprofit RTT Collaborative. He cited data showing that, 3 years after graduation, almost half of recent rural training track participants had continued to practice in rural areas and about a third were serving in professional shortage areas.
"The biggest challenge for retention is getting people to live in a rural place," said Dr. Longenecker, adding that, by living and training in the area for 2 years, physicians learn how to live there.
"The longer they stay, the longer they stay," agreed Dr. Epperly. He said that 85% of the physicians trained through the rural sites of the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho end up practicing in those areas. Another key is to help spouses become acclimated, which his program does through group outreach, Dr. Epperly said.
He noted that 35 of the nation’s 165 medical schools have started to look at training for rural areas in "a more serious way."
In addition, 13 states are contemplating developing rural track training, said Dr. Longenecker.
On Twitter @aliciaault
WASHINGTON – Rural family medicine residency programs are doing what they can to attract more primary care physicians to underserved areas and keep them there, but they are faced with an ever-larger task. Rural communities will be the most hard-pressed to meet growing demand for physicians as more Americans gain health insurance and seek a regular medical care provider, said several experts at a forum on Capitol Hill sponsored by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
The majority of the nation’s rural areas are underserved by physicians, and in particular by primary care.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the number of medical school students choosing primary care residencies still lags far behind those electing to pursue other specialties, said Dr. Ted Epperly, president and chief executive officer of the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho in Boise.
"It all starts with making sure we have a pipeline developed of training broad, well-trained, comprehensivists," said Dr. Epperly. Generalism is the most important attribute needed for primary care, but "what we’ve created is a system of subspecialization, so at a time when we need a complex skill set to be able to handle problems, we’ve micro-detailed our physicians into looking at the left kidney," Dr. Epperly said.
Some 62 million Americans, or 20% of the nation’s population, live in a rural area, said Amy Elizondo, vice president of program services at the National Rural Health Association. Only 9% of the nation’s physicians practice in rural areas, and 77% of the 2,050 rural counties in America are designated as Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). A shortage area is one in which there is one or fewer primary care physicians per 3,500 people, according to HRSA. The agency estimates that, as of Nov. 14, there were 5,800 total primary care shortage areas in the United States, which can be located in urban or rural areas. It would take an additional 7,500 primary care physicians to end the shortages in all of those areas, said HRSA.
Physician organizations and HRSA, among others, have been trying to figure out how to draw more primary care doctors to those areas. The Affordable Care Act established a grant program for states looking to study their workforce issues, but so far HRSA has not been given any money by Congress to fund any grants. When the State Health Workforce Development Grants were announced in 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services said that almost $6 million would be made available to 26 states.
The ACA also established a National Health Care Workforce Commission, but that, too, has never been funded, although members were appointed in 2010 by the head of the Government Accountability Office. The GAO was given the authority under the health law to appoint the commission’s members.
"Right now we don’t have a unified policy or approach to addressing our workforce," said Dr. Stan Kozakowski, director of medical education at the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Dr. Kozakowski said that another way to boost the numbers of rural physicians was to increase training slots devoted to family medicine and, more specifically, residents trained in delivering medicine in rural areas.
A number of family medicine residency programs have developed a rural training track, which requires residents to spend 1 year in the larger academic medical center, followed by 2 years in the rural area, which may or may not have a hospital. Currently, there are 26 active rural training track programs. All are strapped for funding because fewer than half are eligible to receive traditional graduate medical education funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said Dr. Randall Longenecker, professor of family medicine and assistant dean for rural and underserved programsat the Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine in Athens.
But the programs have proven to be effective, said Dr. Longenecker, who is also the executive director of the new nonprofit RTT Collaborative. He cited data showing that, 3 years after graduation, almost half of recent rural training track participants had continued to practice in rural areas and about a third were serving in professional shortage areas.
"The biggest challenge for retention is getting people to live in a rural place," said Dr. Longenecker, adding that, by living and training in the area for 2 years, physicians learn how to live there.
"The longer they stay, the longer they stay," agreed Dr. Epperly. He said that 85% of the physicians trained through the rural sites of the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho end up practicing in those areas. Another key is to help spouses become acclimated, which his program does through group outreach, Dr. Epperly said.
He noted that 35 of the nation’s 165 medical schools have started to look at training for rural areas in "a more serious way."
In addition, 13 states are contemplating developing rural track training, said Dr. Longenecker.
On Twitter @aliciaault
FROM AN AAFP BRIEFING
Pediatricians, cancer groups ask regulators to help cut tobacco use
WASHINGTON – A coalition of health groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network are urging regulators to help the nation achieve at least an 8% reduction in adult smoking rates by 2024.
Smoking kills 440,000 Americans a year and leads to $193 billion in health costs, according to the coalition, which also includes the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Legacy Foundation, and Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. The groups noted that tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.
Tobacco control is effective, Dr. Kenneth E. Warner, a distinguished university professor of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said at a briefing with reporters. He cited just-published data from a JAMA study he conducted with colleagues showing that control efforts had resulted in 8 million saved lives since 1964 and a 30% gain in life expectancy during the same time period (JAMA 2014;311:164-71).
The group said it wants regulators at all levels of government to help reduce smoking from about 18% of adults to less than 10% by 2024, protect all Americans from second-hand smoke within 5 years, and eventually eliminate death and disease caused by tobacco use.
The call to action was issued a week before the release of a new report from the U.S. Surgeon General’s Office on smoking and health that will tabulate the progress in the 50 years since the first Surgeon General’s report on smoking and also lay out the challenges still ahead.
"What has been accomplished in the last 50 years is nothing short of astounding," Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a briefing with reporters. He noted that the adult smoking rate has dropped by more than half, from 42% in 1964 to 18%. Among high school seniors, smoking rates have dropped from 36% in 1997 to 16%. Half of the U.S. population is protected from second-hand smoke by laws that bar smoking in public places.
But 44 million adults and almost 4 million children are still current smokers, and each day, 3,000 children start what usually becomes a lifetime habit. Mr. Myers called smoking a "pediatric epidemic."
Mr. Myers and other speakers decried what they said are continued efforts by tobacco makers to target children. Dr. James M. Perrin, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, noted that although the Food and Drug Administration halted sales of candy-flavored cigarettes in 2010, other candy-like products have emerged, including dissolvables, cigars, and e-cigarettes that have flavors like cotton candy and grape.
"Strong tobacco regulation by the Food and Drug Administration is essential," said Dr. Perrin.
The coalition said that local, state, and federal governments could also help deter tobacco use by increasing excise taxes on tobacco products and raising the age of purchase. New York City and the big island of Hawaii both have banned sales to anyone under age 21 years. High school students may be friends with 18- and 19-year olds, but they aren’t as likely to have peers older than age 20, said Dr. Perrin. Raising the purchase age thus "limits the exposure of younger children ... to tobacco," he said.
E-cigarettes are also a growing concern, even though they are being pitched as a potential smoking cessation tool by their manufacturers, coalition members said. The products also are being marketed to children in a similar way that tobacco has been, said Mr. Myers. The coalition wants FDA regulation of those products "to ensure that the potential for their use to get people to quit is realized, but the danger of their becoming the next generation’s nicotine addiction is avoided," he said.
The Obama Administration may be poised to give the FDA more power to regulate e-cigarettes, said Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the Lung Association. "There are no e-cigarette products that have been demonstrated to be safe and effective to the Food and Drug Administration," said Mr. Billings.
The rules have been under review for more than 90 days, said Mr. Billings, adding "it’s time for action."
On Twitter @aliciaault
WASHINGTON – A coalition of health groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network are urging regulators to help the nation achieve at least an 8% reduction in adult smoking rates by 2024.
Smoking kills 440,000 Americans a year and leads to $193 billion in health costs, according to the coalition, which also includes the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Legacy Foundation, and Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. The groups noted that tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.
Tobacco control is effective, Dr. Kenneth E. Warner, a distinguished university professor of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said at a briefing with reporters. He cited just-published data from a JAMA study he conducted with colleagues showing that control efforts had resulted in 8 million saved lives since 1964 and a 30% gain in life expectancy during the same time period (JAMA 2014;311:164-71).
The group said it wants regulators at all levels of government to help reduce smoking from about 18% of adults to less than 10% by 2024, protect all Americans from second-hand smoke within 5 years, and eventually eliminate death and disease caused by tobacco use.
The call to action was issued a week before the release of a new report from the U.S. Surgeon General’s Office on smoking and health that will tabulate the progress in the 50 years since the first Surgeon General’s report on smoking and also lay out the challenges still ahead.
"What has been accomplished in the last 50 years is nothing short of astounding," Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a briefing with reporters. He noted that the adult smoking rate has dropped by more than half, from 42% in 1964 to 18%. Among high school seniors, smoking rates have dropped from 36% in 1997 to 16%. Half of the U.S. population is protected from second-hand smoke by laws that bar smoking in public places.
But 44 million adults and almost 4 million children are still current smokers, and each day, 3,000 children start what usually becomes a lifetime habit. Mr. Myers called smoking a "pediatric epidemic."
Mr. Myers and other speakers decried what they said are continued efforts by tobacco makers to target children. Dr. James M. Perrin, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, noted that although the Food and Drug Administration halted sales of candy-flavored cigarettes in 2010, other candy-like products have emerged, including dissolvables, cigars, and e-cigarettes that have flavors like cotton candy and grape.
"Strong tobacco regulation by the Food and Drug Administration is essential," said Dr. Perrin.
The coalition said that local, state, and federal governments could also help deter tobacco use by increasing excise taxes on tobacco products and raising the age of purchase. New York City and the big island of Hawaii both have banned sales to anyone under age 21 years. High school students may be friends with 18- and 19-year olds, but they aren’t as likely to have peers older than age 20, said Dr. Perrin. Raising the purchase age thus "limits the exposure of younger children ... to tobacco," he said.
E-cigarettes are also a growing concern, even though they are being pitched as a potential smoking cessation tool by their manufacturers, coalition members said. The products also are being marketed to children in a similar way that tobacco has been, said Mr. Myers. The coalition wants FDA regulation of those products "to ensure that the potential for their use to get people to quit is realized, but the danger of their becoming the next generation’s nicotine addiction is avoided," he said.
The Obama Administration may be poised to give the FDA more power to regulate e-cigarettes, said Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the Lung Association. "There are no e-cigarette products that have been demonstrated to be safe and effective to the Food and Drug Administration," said Mr. Billings.
The rules have been under review for more than 90 days, said Mr. Billings, adding "it’s time for action."
On Twitter @aliciaault
WASHINGTON – A coalition of health groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network are urging regulators to help the nation achieve at least an 8% reduction in adult smoking rates by 2024.
Smoking kills 440,000 Americans a year and leads to $193 billion in health costs, according to the coalition, which also includes the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Legacy Foundation, and Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. The groups noted that tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.
Tobacco control is effective, Dr. Kenneth E. Warner, a distinguished university professor of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said at a briefing with reporters. He cited just-published data from a JAMA study he conducted with colleagues showing that control efforts had resulted in 8 million saved lives since 1964 and a 30% gain in life expectancy during the same time period (JAMA 2014;311:164-71).
The group said it wants regulators at all levels of government to help reduce smoking from about 18% of adults to less than 10% by 2024, protect all Americans from second-hand smoke within 5 years, and eventually eliminate death and disease caused by tobacco use.
The call to action was issued a week before the release of a new report from the U.S. Surgeon General’s Office on smoking and health that will tabulate the progress in the 50 years since the first Surgeon General’s report on smoking and also lay out the challenges still ahead.
"What has been accomplished in the last 50 years is nothing short of astounding," Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a briefing with reporters. He noted that the adult smoking rate has dropped by more than half, from 42% in 1964 to 18%. Among high school seniors, smoking rates have dropped from 36% in 1997 to 16%. Half of the U.S. population is protected from second-hand smoke by laws that bar smoking in public places.
But 44 million adults and almost 4 million children are still current smokers, and each day, 3,000 children start what usually becomes a lifetime habit. Mr. Myers called smoking a "pediatric epidemic."
Mr. Myers and other speakers decried what they said are continued efforts by tobacco makers to target children. Dr. James M. Perrin, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, noted that although the Food and Drug Administration halted sales of candy-flavored cigarettes in 2010, other candy-like products have emerged, including dissolvables, cigars, and e-cigarettes that have flavors like cotton candy and grape.
"Strong tobacco regulation by the Food and Drug Administration is essential," said Dr. Perrin.
The coalition said that local, state, and federal governments could also help deter tobacco use by increasing excise taxes on tobacco products and raising the age of purchase. New York City and the big island of Hawaii both have banned sales to anyone under age 21 years. High school students may be friends with 18- and 19-year olds, but they aren’t as likely to have peers older than age 20, said Dr. Perrin. Raising the purchase age thus "limits the exposure of younger children ... to tobacco," he said.
E-cigarettes are also a growing concern, even though they are being pitched as a potential smoking cessation tool by their manufacturers, coalition members said. The products also are being marketed to children in a similar way that tobacco has been, said Mr. Myers. The coalition wants FDA regulation of those products "to ensure that the potential for their use to get people to quit is realized, but the danger of their becoming the next generation’s nicotine addiction is avoided," he said.
The Obama Administration may be poised to give the FDA more power to regulate e-cigarettes, said Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the Lung Association. "There are no e-cigarette products that have been demonstrated to be safe and effective to the Food and Drug Administration," said Mr. Billings.
The rules have been under review for more than 90 days, said Mr. Billings, adding "it’s time for action."
On Twitter @aliciaault
AT A BRIEFING SPONSORED BY THE CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO-FREE KIDS
CMS: Spending on physician services grew faster in 2012
WASHINGTON - Spending for physician services grew half a percentage point more in 2012 than 2011, according to an annual analysis of health care spending from the National Health Expenditure Accounts Team at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The uptick in spending growth was partially attributable to more physician visits as American pocketbooks began to rebound from the recent recession, Anne B. Martin and her colleagues at the CMS Office of the Actuary said at a briefing Jan. 6.
The impact of the Affordable Care Act on spending growth remained negligible in 2012, as it was in the two prior years, according to their analysis, published simultaneously in the journal Health Affairs (2014;33:67-77 [doi 10/1377/hlthaff.2013.1254]).
The CMS actuaries estimated that, overall, the law increased spending by 0.1% from 2010 to 2012. A few ACA provisions – such as coverage for dependents under age 26 and for patients with pre-existing conditions – increased spending, while others – such as payment cuts to hospitals and rebates for drugs under Medicaid – decreased spending.
Overall, the nation’s health spending – $2.8 *trillion in 2012, the most recent year for which there are accurate and complete data – grew 3.7% in 2012, a historically low rate similar to that seen in the previous 3 years. The flat spending reflects trends seen over the years, in particular with the last three boom-and-bust cycles of the economy, said the CMS actuaries. That is, when the economy does well, health spending rises. When there is a recession, health spending decreases; the rebound in spending often lags an economic recovery by several years, said Aaron Catlin, deputy director of the National Health Statistics Group in the Office of the Actuary.
Certain categories of spending did see growth increases or decreases in 2012 that were the result of one-time events, they said.
Spending on physician services by all payers grew by 4% to $452 billion in 2012. While still not approaching the 5.3% increase in 2008, it’s a rebound from just over 3% growth in 2009 and 2010. Physician services grew 3.5% in 2011 and the upward trend continued in 2012 "primarily because of an increase in visits to doctors’ offices as the economy continued to recover from the recent severe economic recession," Ms. Martin said.
Consumers are shouldering a growing share of their health costs, especially for physician services. Out-of-pocket spending on deductibles and copays grew by 3.8% in 2012. The amount Americans spent on health care, including premiums for private insurance and Medicare, and copays, deductibles, and other uncovered costs, grew 4.3% in 2012, compared to 3.1% in 2011.
Medicare, on the other hand, clamped down on physician pay rates and the volume of care it paid for, even as enrollment grew 4.1% in 2012 – the largest 1-year increase in enrollment in 39 years.
That enrollment growth helped drive an uptick in overall spending on hospital services, which is the largest category of national health expenditures, eating up 32% of the total pie. Hospital spending increased 4.9% in 2012 to $882 billion.
Medicaid spending in 2012 continued a pattern of historically low growth, in part because of slower enrollment as the economy rebounded and also as states continued efforts to rein in the program’s costs. Overall, the Medicaid tab was $421 billion in 2012.
Finally, growth in prescription drug spending slowed precipitously for all Americans – from 2.5% in 2011 to 0.4% in 2012 – even as the number of dispensed prescriptions grew by 1.4%, compared to only a 0.5% increase in 2011. The actuaries noted that this slowing was due in large part to the expanded use of generic drugs. Three top sellers went off patent in late 2011 and 2012: atorvastatin (Lipitor), clopidogrel (Plavix), and montelukast (Singulair). Generic drugs accounted for 77% of all dispensed prescriptions in 2012.
The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest and noted that opinions expressed are their own and not necessarily those of the CMS.
On Twitter @aliciaault
*CORRECTION 1/13/14: A previous version of this article incorrectly reported the cost of the nation's overall health spending. This article has been updated.
WASHINGTON - Spending for physician services grew half a percentage point more in 2012 than 2011, according to an annual analysis of health care spending from the National Health Expenditure Accounts Team at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The uptick in spending growth was partially attributable to more physician visits as American pocketbooks began to rebound from the recent recession, Anne B. Martin and her colleagues at the CMS Office of the Actuary said at a briefing Jan. 6.
The impact of the Affordable Care Act on spending growth remained negligible in 2012, as it was in the two prior years, according to their analysis, published simultaneously in the journal Health Affairs (2014;33:67-77 [doi 10/1377/hlthaff.2013.1254]).
The CMS actuaries estimated that, overall, the law increased spending by 0.1% from 2010 to 2012. A few ACA provisions – such as coverage for dependents under age 26 and for patients with pre-existing conditions – increased spending, while others – such as payment cuts to hospitals and rebates for drugs under Medicaid – decreased spending.
Overall, the nation’s health spending – $2.8 *trillion in 2012, the most recent year for which there are accurate and complete data – grew 3.7% in 2012, a historically low rate similar to that seen in the previous 3 years. The flat spending reflects trends seen over the years, in particular with the last three boom-and-bust cycles of the economy, said the CMS actuaries. That is, when the economy does well, health spending rises. When there is a recession, health spending decreases; the rebound in spending often lags an economic recovery by several years, said Aaron Catlin, deputy director of the National Health Statistics Group in the Office of the Actuary.
Certain categories of spending did see growth increases or decreases in 2012 that were the result of one-time events, they said.
Spending on physician services by all payers grew by 4% to $452 billion in 2012. While still not approaching the 5.3% increase in 2008, it’s a rebound from just over 3% growth in 2009 and 2010. Physician services grew 3.5% in 2011 and the upward trend continued in 2012 "primarily because of an increase in visits to doctors’ offices as the economy continued to recover from the recent severe economic recession," Ms. Martin said.
Consumers are shouldering a growing share of their health costs, especially for physician services. Out-of-pocket spending on deductibles and copays grew by 3.8% in 2012. The amount Americans spent on health care, including premiums for private insurance and Medicare, and copays, deductibles, and other uncovered costs, grew 4.3% in 2012, compared to 3.1% in 2011.
Medicare, on the other hand, clamped down on physician pay rates and the volume of care it paid for, even as enrollment grew 4.1% in 2012 – the largest 1-year increase in enrollment in 39 years.
That enrollment growth helped drive an uptick in overall spending on hospital services, which is the largest category of national health expenditures, eating up 32% of the total pie. Hospital spending increased 4.9% in 2012 to $882 billion.
Medicaid spending in 2012 continued a pattern of historically low growth, in part because of slower enrollment as the economy rebounded and also as states continued efforts to rein in the program’s costs. Overall, the Medicaid tab was $421 billion in 2012.
Finally, growth in prescription drug spending slowed precipitously for all Americans – from 2.5% in 2011 to 0.4% in 2012 – even as the number of dispensed prescriptions grew by 1.4%, compared to only a 0.5% increase in 2011. The actuaries noted that this slowing was due in large part to the expanded use of generic drugs. Three top sellers went off patent in late 2011 and 2012: atorvastatin (Lipitor), clopidogrel (Plavix), and montelukast (Singulair). Generic drugs accounted for 77% of all dispensed prescriptions in 2012.
The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest and noted that opinions expressed are their own and not necessarily those of the CMS.
On Twitter @aliciaault
*CORRECTION 1/13/14: A previous version of this article incorrectly reported the cost of the nation's overall health spending. This article has been updated.
WASHINGTON - Spending for physician services grew half a percentage point more in 2012 than 2011, according to an annual analysis of health care spending from the National Health Expenditure Accounts Team at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The uptick in spending growth was partially attributable to more physician visits as American pocketbooks began to rebound from the recent recession, Anne B. Martin and her colleagues at the CMS Office of the Actuary said at a briefing Jan. 6.
The impact of the Affordable Care Act on spending growth remained negligible in 2012, as it was in the two prior years, according to their analysis, published simultaneously in the journal Health Affairs (2014;33:67-77 [doi 10/1377/hlthaff.2013.1254]).
The CMS actuaries estimated that, overall, the law increased spending by 0.1% from 2010 to 2012. A few ACA provisions – such as coverage for dependents under age 26 and for patients with pre-existing conditions – increased spending, while others – such as payment cuts to hospitals and rebates for drugs under Medicaid – decreased spending.
Overall, the nation’s health spending – $2.8 *trillion in 2012, the most recent year for which there are accurate and complete data – grew 3.7% in 2012, a historically low rate similar to that seen in the previous 3 years. The flat spending reflects trends seen over the years, in particular with the last three boom-and-bust cycles of the economy, said the CMS actuaries. That is, when the economy does well, health spending rises. When there is a recession, health spending decreases; the rebound in spending often lags an economic recovery by several years, said Aaron Catlin, deputy director of the National Health Statistics Group in the Office of the Actuary.
Certain categories of spending did see growth increases or decreases in 2012 that were the result of one-time events, they said.
Spending on physician services by all payers grew by 4% to $452 billion in 2012. While still not approaching the 5.3% increase in 2008, it’s a rebound from just over 3% growth in 2009 and 2010. Physician services grew 3.5% in 2011 and the upward trend continued in 2012 "primarily because of an increase in visits to doctors’ offices as the economy continued to recover from the recent severe economic recession," Ms. Martin said.
Consumers are shouldering a growing share of their health costs, especially for physician services. Out-of-pocket spending on deductibles and copays grew by 3.8% in 2012. The amount Americans spent on health care, including premiums for private insurance and Medicare, and copays, deductibles, and other uncovered costs, grew 4.3% in 2012, compared to 3.1% in 2011.
Medicare, on the other hand, clamped down on physician pay rates and the volume of care it paid for, even as enrollment grew 4.1% in 2012 – the largest 1-year increase in enrollment in 39 years.
That enrollment growth helped drive an uptick in overall spending on hospital services, which is the largest category of national health expenditures, eating up 32% of the total pie. Hospital spending increased 4.9% in 2012 to $882 billion.
Medicaid spending in 2012 continued a pattern of historically low growth, in part because of slower enrollment as the economy rebounded and also as states continued efforts to rein in the program’s costs. Overall, the Medicaid tab was $421 billion in 2012.
Finally, growth in prescription drug spending slowed precipitously for all Americans – from 2.5% in 2011 to 0.4% in 2012 – even as the number of dispensed prescriptions grew by 1.4%, compared to only a 0.5% increase in 2011. The actuaries noted that this slowing was due in large part to the expanded use of generic drugs. Three top sellers went off patent in late 2011 and 2012: atorvastatin (Lipitor), clopidogrel (Plavix), and montelukast (Singulair). Generic drugs accounted for 77% of all dispensed prescriptions in 2012.
The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest and noted that opinions expressed are their own and not necessarily those of the CMS.
On Twitter @aliciaault
*CORRECTION 1/13/14: A previous version of this article incorrectly reported the cost of the nation's overall health spending. This article has been updated.
FROM A HEALTH AFFAIRS BRIEFING
Major finding: Growth in national health care spending for 2012 was 3.7%, a low, but slightly larger rate of growth than in 2011.
Data source: Several federal databases including those managed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Census Bureau.
Disclosures: The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest and noted that opinions expressed are their own and not necessarily those of the CMS.
President signs budget deal, short-term SGR fix
Physicians will get a 0.5% raise in Medicare pay on Jan. 1, thanks to a last-minute legislative fix to the Sustainable Growth Rate formula signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 26.
The Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 was attached as an amendment to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2013. The budget deal, brokered by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), passed the House on Dec. 12 and the Senate on Dec. 18. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the temporary fix would cost $3.3 billion in 2014 and a total of $7.3 billion through 2023. It would be paid for by cutting Medicaid payments for hospital-based charity care and to long-term care hospitals.
The law also extends the 2% sequestration cut to Medicare payments by 2 years, to 2023.
It encourages the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to simplify physicians’ administrative burden by trying to more closely coordinate quality measure requirements and give doctors more timely feedback on those measures.
The law extends funding for a variety of other health-related federal programs for an additional 3 months, including for Area Agencies on Aging.
Congress is expected to start consideration again of a permanent replacement for the SGR when it returns on Jan. 6.
On Twitter @aliciaault
*Correction 2/05/14: The following passage was deleted from a previous version of this story as the provision was not included in the law as signed.
Finally, the law delays enforcement of the "two-midnight rule" until Oct. 2014. The goal of the two-midnight policy, which was included in the fiscal 2014 Inpatient Prospective Payment System final rule, is to cut down on hospitals using observation status to keep from admitting patients. Hospitals now have until Oct. 1, 2014 to adjust to the new policy, which requires patients to be admitted if physicians think they will need a stay longer than 48 hours.
Physicians will get a 0.5% raise in Medicare pay on Jan. 1, thanks to a last-minute legislative fix to the Sustainable Growth Rate formula signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 26.
The Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 was attached as an amendment to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2013. The budget deal, brokered by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), passed the House on Dec. 12 and the Senate on Dec. 18. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the temporary fix would cost $3.3 billion in 2014 and a total of $7.3 billion through 2023. It would be paid for by cutting Medicaid payments for hospital-based charity care and to long-term care hospitals.
The law also extends the 2% sequestration cut to Medicare payments by 2 years, to 2023.
It encourages the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to simplify physicians’ administrative burden by trying to more closely coordinate quality measure requirements and give doctors more timely feedback on those measures.
The law extends funding for a variety of other health-related federal programs for an additional 3 months, including for Area Agencies on Aging.
Congress is expected to start consideration again of a permanent replacement for the SGR when it returns on Jan. 6.
On Twitter @aliciaault
*Correction 2/05/14: The following passage was deleted from a previous version of this story as the provision was not included in the law as signed.
Finally, the law delays enforcement of the "two-midnight rule" until Oct. 2014. The goal of the two-midnight policy, which was included in the fiscal 2014 Inpatient Prospective Payment System final rule, is to cut down on hospitals using observation status to keep from admitting patients. Hospitals now have until Oct. 1, 2014 to adjust to the new policy, which requires patients to be admitted if physicians think they will need a stay longer than 48 hours.
Physicians will get a 0.5% raise in Medicare pay on Jan. 1, thanks to a last-minute legislative fix to the Sustainable Growth Rate formula signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 26.
The Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 was attached as an amendment to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2013. The budget deal, brokered by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), passed the House on Dec. 12 and the Senate on Dec. 18. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the temporary fix would cost $3.3 billion in 2014 and a total of $7.3 billion through 2023. It would be paid for by cutting Medicaid payments for hospital-based charity care and to long-term care hospitals.
The law also extends the 2% sequestration cut to Medicare payments by 2 years, to 2023.
It encourages the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to simplify physicians’ administrative burden by trying to more closely coordinate quality measure requirements and give doctors more timely feedback on those measures.
The law extends funding for a variety of other health-related federal programs for an additional 3 months, including for Area Agencies on Aging.
Congress is expected to start consideration again of a permanent replacement for the SGR when it returns on Jan. 6.
On Twitter @aliciaault
*Correction 2/05/14: The following passage was deleted from a previous version of this story as the provision was not included in the law as signed.
Finally, the law delays enforcement of the "two-midnight rule" until Oct. 2014. The goal of the two-midnight policy, which was included in the fiscal 2014 Inpatient Prospective Payment System final rule, is to cut down on hospitals using observation status to keep from admitting patients. Hospitals now have until Oct. 1, 2014 to adjust to the new policy, which requires patients to be admitted if physicians think they will need a stay longer than 48 hours.
Senate passes SGR and budget bill; White House next
The Senate has passed a budget package that includes a 3-month delay in physician pay cuts mandated by the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula but also extends other overall Medicare budget cuts for 2 years.
The Senate voted 64-36 on Dec. 18 to approve the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 crafted by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Nine Republican senators voted in favor of the deal, joining 55 Democrats.
The 3-month reprieve from the SGR cuts was added to the budget deal by the House before it voted to approve the package on Dec. 12.
Now, if President Obama signs the budget bill, which is expected, physicians will see 0.5% a month pay increase through Mar. 31.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the temporary fix would cost $3.3 billion in 2014 and a total of $7.3 billion through 2023. It would be paid for by cutting Medicaid payments for hospital-based charity care and to long-term care hospitals.
The bill also would extend the 2% sequestration cut to Medicare payments by 2 years, to 2023.
The House has recessed and is not due back until Jan. 7. The Senate has not set its adjournment date yet, but is expected to reconvene on Jan. 6.
Congress is expected to start consideration again of a permanent replacement for the SGR when it returns.
On Twitter @aliciaault
The Senate has passed a budget package that includes a 3-month delay in physician pay cuts mandated by the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula but also extends other overall Medicare budget cuts for 2 years.
The Senate voted 64-36 on Dec. 18 to approve the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 crafted by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Nine Republican senators voted in favor of the deal, joining 55 Democrats.
The 3-month reprieve from the SGR cuts was added to the budget deal by the House before it voted to approve the package on Dec. 12.
Now, if President Obama signs the budget bill, which is expected, physicians will see 0.5% a month pay increase through Mar. 31.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the temporary fix would cost $3.3 billion in 2014 and a total of $7.3 billion through 2023. It would be paid for by cutting Medicaid payments for hospital-based charity care and to long-term care hospitals.
The bill also would extend the 2% sequestration cut to Medicare payments by 2 years, to 2023.
The House has recessed and is not due back until Jan. 7. The Senate has not set its adjournment date yet, but is expected to reconvene on Jan. 6.
Congress is expected to start consideration again of a permanent replacement for the SGR when it returns.
On Twitter @aliciaault
The Senate has passed a budget package that includes a 3-month delay in physician pay cuts mandated by the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula but also extends other overall Medicare budget cuts for 2 years.
The Senate voted 64-36 on Dec. 18 to approve the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 crafted by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Nine Republican senators voted in favor of the deal, joining 55 Democrats.
The 3-month reprieve from the SGR cuts was added to the budget deal by the House before it voted to approve the package on Dec. 12.
Now, if President Obama signs the budget bill, which is expected, physicians will see 0.5% a month pay increase through Mar. 31.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the temporary fix would cost $3.3 billion in 2014 and a total of $7.3 billion through 2023. It would be paid for by cutting Medicaid payments for hospital-based charity care and to long-term care hospitals.
The bill also would extend the 2% sequestration cut to Medicare payments by 2 years, to 2023.
The House has recessed and is not due back until Jan. 7. The Senate has not set its adjournment date yet, but is expected to reconvene on Jan. 6.
Congress is expected to start consideration again of a permanent replacement for the SGR when it returns.
On Twitter @aliciaault
Senate passes SGR and budget bill; White House next
The Senate has passed a budget package that includes a 3-month delay in physician pay cuts mandated by the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula but also extends other overall Medicare budget cuts for 2 years.
The Senate voted 64-36 on Dec. 18 to approve the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 crafted by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Nine Republican senators voted in favor of the deal, joining 55 Democrats.
The 3-month reprieve from the SGR cuts was added to the budget deal by the House before it voted to approve the package on Dec. 12.
Now, if President Obama signs the budget bill, which is expected, physicians will see 0.5% a month pay increase through Mar. 31.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the temporary fix would cost $3.3 billion in 2014 and a total of $7.3 billion through 2023. It would be paid for by cutting Medicaid payments for hospital-based charity care and to long-term care hospitals.
The bill also would extend the 2% sequestration cut to Medicare payments by 2 years, to 2023.
The House has recessed and is not due back until Jan. 7. The Senate has not set its adjournment date yet, but is expected to reconvene on Jan. 6.
Congress is expected to start consideration again of a permanent replacement for the SGR when it returns.
On Twitter @aliciaault
The Senate has passed a budget package that includes a 3-month delay in physician pay cuts mandated by the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula but also extends other overall Medicare budget cuts for 2 years.
The Senate voted 64-36 on Dec. 18 to approve the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 crafted by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Nine Republican senators voted in favor of the deal, joining 55 Democrats.
The 3-month reprieve from the SGR cuts was added to the budget deal by the House before it voted to approve the package on Dec. 12.
Now, if President Obama signs the budget bill, which is expected, physicians will see 0.5% a month pay increase through Mar. 31.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the temporary fix would cost $3.3 billion in 2014 and a total of $7.3 billion through 2023. It would be paid for by cutting Medicaid payments for hospital-based charity care and to long-term care hospitals.
The bill also would extend the 2% sequestration cut to Medicare payments by 2 years, to 2023.
The House has recessed and is not due back until Jan. 7. The Senate has not set its adjournment date yet, but is expected to reconvene on Jan. 6.
Congress is expected to start consideration again of a permanent replacement for the SGR when it returns.
On Twitter @aliciaault
The Senate has passed a budget package that includes a 3-month delay in physician pay cuts mandated by the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula but also extends other overall Medicare budget cuts for 2 years.
The Senate voted 64-36 on Dec. 18 to approve the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 crafted by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Nine Republican senators voted in favor of the deal, joining 55 Democrats.
The 3-month reprieve from the SGR cuts was added to the budget deal by the House before it voted to approve the package on Dec. 12.
Now, if President Obama signs the budget bill, which is expected, physicians will see 0.5% a month pay increase through Mar. 31.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the temporary fix would cost $3.3 billion in 2014 and a total of $7.3 billion through 2023. It would be paid for by cutting Medicaid payments for hospital-based charity care and to long-term care hospitals.
The bill also would extend the 2% sequestration cut to Medicare payments by 2 years, to 2023.
The House has recessed and is not due back until Jan. 7. The Senate has not set its adjournment date yet, but is expected to reconvene on Jan. 6.
Congress is expected to start consideration again of a permanent replacement for the SGR when it returns.
On Twitter @aliciaault
House budget includes SGR patch; permanent fix sails through committees
WASHINGTON - Congress has moved the ball forward on permanently replacing the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula, but with time short for a fix by year's end the House has voted to approve a temporary 3-month reprieve from the 20% cut due to take effect Jan. 1.
In a 332-94 vote, with eight abstentions, the House on Dec. 12 approved the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, a wide-ranging budget agreement that includes the 3-month patch. The bill also would increase physician pay by 0.5% through March.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the temporary fix would cost $3.3 billion in 2014 and a total of $7.3 billion through 2023. The fix would be paid for by cutting Medicaid payments for hospital-based charity care and to long-term care hospitals.
It also would extend the 2% sequestration cuts for Medicare providers by 2 years, from 2021 to 2023.
The Senate has yet to consider the budget package including the SGR patch; it is expected to do so before its holiday recess. President Obama has said that he supports the deal.
The agreement, brokered by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.), adds about $63 billion in discretionary federal spending over 2 years and makes targeted cuts and fee hikes to bring about overall deficit reduction of about $23 billion.
Although physician groups aren't thrilled about the continuation of the Medicare cuts under sequestration, most favor the temporary SGR reprieve and the restoration of some funding to federal health programs.
Dr. Ardis Dee Hoven, president of the American Medical Association, said that the continuation of the sequester cuts in Medicare is "frustrating" and poses the risk of destabilizing physician practices. "The concept of the sequester is probably not the best way to rein in spending," she said.
Dr. Clifford A. Hudis, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the agreement for providing funds that could restore cuts in medical research and cancer care at the National Institutes of Health. He expressed disappointment, however, that the bill does not reverse cuts to Medicare, including reductions in the payments for physician-administered drugs under Medicare Part B.
"Oncologists are doing everything possible to continue providing care for Medicare patients, but this reduction has forced many in private practice to send patients to hospitals for chemotherapy because they cannot afford to administer these drugs in their office," Dr. Hudis said in a statement.
Physician organizations viewed the patch as necessary while Congress continues to work on a permanent SGR fix. Both the House and Senate took steps toward that goal on Dec. 12.
The House Ways and Means Committee voted 39-0 to approve its replacement proposal, which essentially adds on to the bill approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in July.
"This may not be the final step, it's a very important step forward," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee.
The House did not address how to pay for the permanent replacement. House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) noted that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it will cost $116 billion over 10 years to repeal the SGR, which is "more than half the cost 2 years ago." Even though that is the lowest estimate ever, "I am of no illusion that finding pay-fors will be an easy task," he said.
The Senate Finance Committee also did not include a way to pay for repeal in its proposal.
The bill had widespread bipartisan support in the committee, but some Senators raised concerns about the lack of a funding mechanism. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said that he wouldn’t support the bill until he could see how it would be funded.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R- Utah), the committee's top-ranking Republican, said that the offsets would be worked out once the bill had cleared the initial policymaking phase.
"This bill will be offset, period, or it's not going to go through both houses," he said. "This bill will be paid for."
The panel agreed to add a provision aimed at expanding access to community mental health services. The amendment, offered by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), would create pilot programs in 10 states to ensure that community behavioral health clinics offer a full range of mental health services, including 24-hour crisis care, substance abuse treatment, and expanded support for families.
Physician groups praised the continued congressional action.
The AMA "strongly commends members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee for the tremendous progress they have made toward repealing Medicare's failed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula and creating a stronger Medicare program," Dr. Hoven said in a statement. "The AMA will continue to work collaboratively with Congress so that a bipartisan agreement can be signed into law early next year to repeal the failed SGR payment formula."
The American College of Physicians said that it, too, would work to ensure that a bill moves through Congress and gets to the White House for approval soon.
"The bills reported today ... will help ensure that Medicare patients continue to have access to their physicians," said Dr. Charles Cutler, chairman of the ACP Board of Regents. "Their efforts will work to stabilize payments, provide multiple pathways for physicians to qualify for positive updates and to participate in alternative payment models, create positive incentives for patient-centered medical homes, provide assistance to small practices, and needed funding for development of quality measures."
The American College of Cardiology said in a statement that the proposals accomplished two of its highest priorities: eliminating the SGR and including provisions that will emphasize quality of care, including "provisions that emphasize the importance of clinical data registries, quality measure development, and appropriate use criteria to promote evidence-based care."
"We caution that our final support rests upon the caveat that paying for this legislation must not cause harm to patients and the physicians who care for them," Dr. John Gordon Harold, ACC president, said in the statement.
Legislators from the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee celebrated their votes in a joint statement. In the statement, Sen. Hatch also issued a word of caution.
"Now that this legislation moves out of Committee and onto the floor, we need to continue to work together to ensure that this smart policy becomes law and ensure that it doesn't add one dime to our nation's debt."
WASHINGTON - Congress has moved the ball forward on permanently replacing the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula, but with time short for a fix by year's end the House has voted to approve a temporary 3-month reprieve from the 20% cut due to take effect Jan. 1.
In a 332-94 vote, with eight abstentions, the House on Dec. 12 approved the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, a wide-ranging budget agreement that includes the 3-month patch. The bill also would increase physician pay by 0.5% through March.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the temporary fix would cost $3.3 billion in 2014 and a total of $7.3 billion through 2023. The fix would be paid for by cutting Medicaid payments for hospital-based charity care and to long-term care hospitals.
It also would extend the 2% sequestration cuts for Medicare providers by 2 years, from 2021 to 2023.
The Senate has yet to consider the budget package including the SGR patch; it is expected to do so before its holiday recess. President Obama has said that he supports the deal.
The agreement, brokered by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.), adds about $63 billion in discretionary federal spending over 2 years and makes targeted cuts and fee hikes to bring about overall deficit reduction of about $23 billion.
Although physician groups aren't thrilled about the continuation of the Medicare cuts under sequestration, most favor the temporary SGR reprieve and the restoration of some funding to federal health programs.
Dr. Ardis Dee Hoven, president of the American Medical Association, said that the continuation of the sequester cuts in Medicare is "frustrating" and poses the risk of destabilizing physician practices. "The concept of the sequester is probably not the best way to rein in spending," she said.
Dr. Clifford A. Hudis, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the agreement for providing funds that could restore cuts in medical research and cancer care at the National Institutes of Health. He expressed disappointment, however, that the bill does not reverse cuts to Medicare, including reductions in the payments for physician-administered drugs under Medicare Part B.
"Oncologists are doing everything possible to continue providing care for Medicare patients, but this reduction has forced many in private practice to send patients to hospitals for chemotherapy because they cannot afford to administer these drugs in their office," Dr. Hudis said in a statement.
Physician organizations viewed the patch as necessary while Congress continues to work on a permanent SGR fix. Both the House and Senate took steps toward that goal on Dec. 12.
The House Ways and Means Committee voted 39-0 to approve its replacement proposal, which essentially adds on to the bill approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in July.
"This may not be the final step, it's a very important step forward," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee.
The House did not address how to pay for the permanent replacement. House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) noted that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it will cost $116 billion over 10 years to repeal the SGR, which is "more than half the cost 2 years ago." Even though that is the lowest estimate ever, "I am of no illusion that finding pay-fors will be an easy task," he said.
The Senate Finance Committee also did not include a way to pay for repeal in its proposal.
The bill had widespread bipartisan support in the committee, but some Senators raised concerns about the lack of a funding mechanism. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said that he wouldn’t support the bill until he could see how it would be funded.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R- Utah), the committee's top-ranking Republican, said that the offsets would be worked out once the bill had cleared the initial policymaking phase.
"This bill will be offset, period, or it's not going to go through both houses," he said. "This bill will be paid for."
The panel agreed to add a provision aimed at expanding access to community mental health services. The amendment, offered by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), would create pilot programs in 10 states to ensure that community behavioral health clinics offer a full range of mental health services, including 24-hour crisis care, substance abuse treatment, and expanded support for families.
Physician groups praised the continued congressional action.
The AMA "strongly commends members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee for the tremendous progress they have made toward repealing Medicare's failed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula and creating a stronger Medicare program," Dr. Hoven said in a statement. "The AMA will continue to work collaboratively with Congress so that a bipartisan agreement can be signed into law early next year to repeal the failed SGR payment formula."
The American College of Physicians said that it, too, would work to ensure that a bill moves through Congress and gets to the White House for approval soon.
"The bills reported today ... will help ensure that Medicare patients continue to have access to their physicians," said Dr. Charles Cutler, chairman of the ACP Board of Regents. "Their efforts will work to stabilize payments, provide multiple pathways for physicians to qualify for positive updates and to participate in alternative payment models, create positive incentives for patient-centered medical homes, provide assistance to small practices, and needed funding for development of quality measures."
The American College of Cardiology said in a statement that the proposals accomplished two of its highest priorities: eliminating the SGR and including provisions that will emphasize quality of care, including "provisions that emphasize the importance of clinical data registries, quality measure development, and appropriate use criteria to promote evidence-based care."
"We caution that our final support rests upon the caveat that paying for this legislation must not cause harm to patients and the physicians who care for them," Dr. John Gordon Harold, ACC president, said in the statement.
Legislators from the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee celebrated their votes in a joint statement. In the statement, Sen. Hatch also issued a word of caution.
"Now that this legislation moves out of Committee and onto the floor, we need to continue to work together to ensure that this smart policy becomes law and ensure that it doesn't add one dime to our nation's debt."
WASHINGTON - Congress has moved the ball forward on permanently replacing the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula, but with time short for a fix by year's end the House has voted to approve a temporary 3-month reprieve from the 20% cut due to take effect Jan. 1.
In a 332-94 vote, with eight abstentions, the House on Dec. 12 approved the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, a wide-ranging budget agreement that includes the 3-month patch. The bill also would increase physician pay by 0.5% through March.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the temporary fix would cost $3.3 billion in 2014 and a total of $7.3 billion through 2023. The fix would be paid for by cutting Medicaid payments for hospital-based charity care and to long-term care hospitals.
It also would extend the 2% sequestration cuts for Medicare providers by 2 years, from 2021 to 2023.
The Senate has yet to consider the budget package including the SGR patch; it is expected to do so before its holiday recess. President Obama has said that he supports the deal.
The agreement, brokered by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.), adds about $63 billion in discretionary federal spending over 2 years and makes targeted cuts and fee hikes to bring about overall deficit reduction of about $23 billion.
Although physician groups aren't thrilled about the continuation of the Medicare cuts under sequestration, most favor the temporary SGR reprieve and the restoration of some funding to federal health programs.
Dr. Ardis Dee Hoven, president of the American Medical Association, said that the continuation of the sequester cuts in Medicare is "frustrating" and poses the risk of destabilizing physician practices. "The concept of the sequester is probably not the best way to rein in spending," she said.
Dr. Clifford A. Hudis, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the agreement for providing funds that could restore cuts in medical research and cancer care at the National Institutes of Health. He expressed disappointment, however, that the bill does not reverse cuts to Medicare, including reductions in the payments for physician-administered drugs under Medicare Part B.
"Oncologists are doing everything possible to continue providing care for Medicare patients, but this reduction has forced many in private practice to send patients to hospitals for chemotherapy because they cannot afford to administer these drugs in their office," Dr. Hudis said in a statement.
Physician organizations viewed the patch as necessary while Congress continues to work on a permanent SGR fix. Both the House and Senate took steps toward that goal on Dec. 12.
The House Ways and Means Committee voted 39-0 to approve its replacement proposal, which essentially adds on to the bill approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in July.
"This may not be the final step, it's a very important step forward," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee.
The House did not address how to pay for the permanent replacement. House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) noted that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it will cost $116 billion over 10 years to repeal the SGR, which is "more than half the cost 2 years ago." Even though that is the lowest estimate ever, "I am of no illusion that finding pay-fors will be an easy task," he said.
The Senate Finance Committee also did not include a way to pay for repeal in its proposal.
The bill had widespread bipartisan support in the committee, but some Senators raised concerns about the lack of a funding mechanism. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said that he wouldn’t support the bill until he could see how it would be funded.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R- Utah), the committee's top-ranking Republican, said that the offsets would be worked out once the bill had cleared the initial policymaking phase.
"This bill will be offset, period, or it's not going to go through both houses," he said. "This bill will be paid for."
The panel agreed to add a provision aimed at expanding access to community mental health services. The amendment, offered by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), would create pilot programs in 10 states to ensure that community behavioral health clinics offer a full range of mental health services, including 24-hour crisis care, substance abuse treatment, and expanded support for families.
Physician groups praised the continued congressional action.
The AMA "strongly commends members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee for the tremendous progress they have made toward repealing Medicare's failed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula and creating a stronger Medicare program," Dr. Hoven said in a statement. "The AMA will continue to work collaboratively with Congress so that a bipartisan agreement can be signed into law early next year to repeal the failed SGR payment formula."
The American College of Physicians said that it, too, would work to ensure that a bill moves through Congress and gets to the White House for approval soon.
"The bills reported today ... will help ensure that Medicare patients continue to have access to their physicians," said Dr. Charles Cutler, chairman of the ACP Board of Regents. "Their efforts will work to stabilize payments, provide multiple pathways for physicians to qualify for positive updates and to participate in alternative payment models, create positive incentives for patient-centered medical homes, provide assistance to small practices, and needed funding for development of quality measures."
The American College of Cardiology said in a statement that the proposals accomplished two of its highest priorities: eliminating the SGR and including provisions that will emphasize quality of care, including "provisions that emphasize the importance of clinical data registries, quality measure development, and appropriate use criteria to promote evidence-based care."
"We caution that our final support rests upon the caveat that paying for this legislation must not cause harm to patients and the physicians who care for them," Dr. John Gordon Harold, ACC president, said in the statement.
Legislators from the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee celebrated their votes in a joint statement. In the statement, Sen. Hatch also issued a word of caution.
"Now that this legislation moves out of Committee and onto the floor, we need to continue to work together to ensure that this smart policy becomes law and ensure that it doesn't add one dime to our nation's debt."
FDA Wants Proof Antibacterial Soaps are Safe, Effective
The Food and Drug Administration is proposing that manufacturers of antibacterial soaps prove by 2016 that the products are safe and effective, or they must be reformulated or relabeled.
The agency said it currently is looking only at consumer products. It will address antibacterial soaps used in the health care and food preparation settings separately. The proposal also does not affect alcohol-based hand sanitizers, which the agency has already recognized as generally safe and effective.
The Dec. 16 proposed rule is the result of a settlement with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That nonprofit environmental group sued the agency in 2010 to force it to issue a final rule on a 1978 proposal to remove the antibacterial agent triclosan from certain consumer products.
The FDA now says that manufacturers will have to prove that antibacterial soaps and body washes – primarily made with triclosan and triclocarban – are safer and more effective than soap and water in preventing infection and the spread of germs. The agency estimates that at least 2,200 antibacterial soaps are on the market. Manufacturers have provided no evidence supporting their use, Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director of the Office of New Drugs at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a call with reporters. Those manufacturers will now be required to conduct studies to prove safety and effectiveness in humans.
There has been evidence in animal and in vitro studies that triclosan and triclocarban are endocrine disruptors, Dr. Kweder said.
With the antibacterial soaps, "there are unknowns and even a slight potential for a risk," she said. "We think consumers ought to know, and we ought to know, what the benefits of these products are."
The rule is open for comment until June 2014. The antibacterial soaps are allowed to remain on the market until the agency finalizes its proposal – not likely until September 2016, Dr. Kweder said. If manufacturers cannot demonstrate safety and effectiveness, the soaps will have to be reformulated without triclosan or relabeled to remove any antibacterial claims, Dr. Kweder said.
Manufacturers, however, said that they already have complied with agency requests for more data.
"We are perplexed that the Agency would suggest there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps are beneficial, as industry has long provided data and information about the safety and efficacy of these products," said the American Cleaning Institute and the Personal Care Products Council in a joint statement. "Our industry’s Topical Antimicrobial Coalition has submitted to FDA in-depth data showing that antibacterial soaps are more effective in killing germs when compared with non-antibacterial soaps," the statement said.
The groups said that they "will continue to operate in good faith to submit any new data that is available," but that manufacturers will submit comments to FDA "reaffirming that the use of antibacterial wash products in the home environment does not contribute to antibiotic or antibacterial resistance."
Consumer groups such as the NRDC, the Environmental Working Group, and others that have pressured the agency to more strictly regulate triclosan or remove it from the market applauded the FDA proposal, but noted that the examination of the ingredient has already been 30 years in the making.
Since the FDA first proposed regulating triclosan in 1978, it has revisited the topic multiple times, including at a 2005 advisory committee meeting. The panel said that the antibacterial soaps were ineffective and raised numerous safety concerns.
Mae Wu, an attorney with the NRDC’s health program, said in a statement that the agency’s proposal was "a good first step toward getting unsafe triclosan off the market."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has urged the FDA to finalize its triclosan ruling and also has encouraged manufacturers to stop using it, said in a statement that "chemicals like triclosan existed in a regulatory black hole" for decades. "I applaud the FDA for taking a step to restrict the use of this harmful and ineffective chemical that continues to pollute our bodies," he said.
The FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency, among other agencies, have acknowledged triclosan’s potential to interfere with the normal functioning of estrogen, testosterone, and thyroid hormone. The National Toxicology Program continues to study the chemical, but the FDA wants manufacturers to come forward with information, too, Dr. Kweder said.
The FDA did approve the use of triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste in 1997. The NRDC recently sued the FDA for access to its full records on that approval, saying that the ingredient should not be in toothpaste, either.
The FDA is not as concerned about the use in toothpaste, because it received data from the manufacturer showing that triclosan was safe and effective in that setting, Dr. Kweder said.
On Twitter @aliciaault
The Food and Drug Administration is proposing that manufacturers of antibacterial soaps prove by 2016 that the products are safe and effective, or they must be reformulated or relabeled.
The agency said it currently is looking only at consumer products. It will address antibacterial soaps used in the health care and food preparation settings separately. The proposal also does not affect alcohol-based hand sanitizers, which the agency has already recognized as generally safe and effective.
The Dec. 16 proposed rule is the result of a settlement with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That nonprofit environmental group sued the agency in 2010 to force it to issue a final rule on a 1978 proposal to remove the antibacterial agent triclosan from certain consumer products.
The FDA now says that manufacturers will have to prove that antibacterial soaps and body washes – primarily made with triclosan and triclocarban – are safer and more effective than soap and water in preventing infection and the spread of germs. The agency estimates that at least 2,200 antibacterial soaps are on the market. Manufacturers have provided no evidence supporting their use, Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director of the Office of New Drugs at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a call with reporters. Those manufacturers will now be required to conduct studies to prove safety and effectiveness in humans.
There has been evidence in animal and in vitro studies that triclosan and triclocarban are endocrine disruptors, Dr. Kweder said.
With the antibacterial soaps, "there are unknowns and even a slight potential for a risk," she said. "We think consumers ought to know, and we ought to know, what the benefits of these products are."
The rule is open for comment until June 2014. The antibacterial soaps are allowed to remain on the market until the agency finalizes its proposal – not likely until September 2016, Dr. Kweder said. If manufacturers cannot demonstrate safety and effectiveness, the soaps will have to be reformulated without triclosan or relabeled to remove any antibacterial claims, Dr. Kweder said.
Manufacturers, however, said that they already have complied with agency requests for more data.
"We are perplexed that the Agency would suggest there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps are beneficial, as industry has long provided data and information about the safety and efficacy of these products," said the American Cleaning Institute and the Personal Care Products Council in a joint statement. "Our industry’s Topical Antimicrobial Coalition has submitted to FDA in-depth data showing that antibacterial soaps are more effective in killing germs when compared with non-antibacterial soaps," the statement said.
The groups said that they "will continue to operate in good faith to submit any new data that is available," but that manufacturers will submit comments to FDA "reaffirming that the use of antibacterial wash products in the home environment does not contribute to antibiotic or antibacterial resistance."
Consumer groups such as the NRDC, the Environmental Working Group, and others that have pressured the agency to more strictly regulate triclosan or remove it from the market applauded the FDA proposal, but noted that the examination of the ingredient has already been 30 years in the making.
Since the FDA first proposed regulating triclosan in 1978, it has revisited the topic multiple times, including at a 2005 advisory committee meeting. The panel said that the antibacterial soaps were ineffective and raised numerous safety concerns.
Mae Wu, an attorney with the NRDC’s health program, said in a statement that the agency’s proposal was "a good first step toward getting unsafe triclosan off the market."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has urged the FDA to finalize its triclosan ruling and also has encouraged manufacturers to stop using it, said in a statement that "chemicals like triclosan existed in a regulatory black hole" for decades. "I applaud the FDA for taking a step to restrict the use of this harmful and ineffective chemical that continues to pollute our bodies," he said.
The FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency, among other agencies, have acknowledged triclosan’s potential to interfere with the normal functioning of estrogen, testosterone, and thyroid hormone. The National Toxicology Program continues to study the chemical, but the FDA wants manufacturers to come forward with information, too, Dr. Kweder said.
The FDA did approve the use of triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste in 1997. The NRDC recently sued the FDA for access to its full records on that approval, saying that the ingredient should not be in toothpaste, either.
The FDA is not as concerned about the use in toothpaste, because it received data from the manufacturer showing that triclosan was safe and effective in that setting, Dr. Kweder said.
On Twitter @aliciaault
The Food and Drug Administration is proposing that manufacturers of antibacterial soaps prove by 2016 that the products are safe and effective, or they must be reformulated or relabeled.
The agency said it currently is looking only at consumer products. It will address antibacterial soaps used in the health care and food preparation settings separately. The proposal also does not affect alcohol-based hand sanitizers, which the agency has already recognized as generally safe and effective.
The Dec. 16 proposed rule is the result of a settlement with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That nonprofit environmental group sued the agency in 2010 to force it to issue a final rule on a 1978 proposal to remove the antibacterial agent triclosan from certain consumer products.
The FDA now says that manufacturers will have to prove that antibacterial soaps and body washes – primarily made with triclosan and triclocarban – are safer and more effective than soap and water in preventing infection and the spread of germs. The agency estimates that at least 2,200 antibacterial soaps are on the market. Manufacturers have provided no evidence supporting their use, Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director of the Office of New Drugs at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a call with reporters. Those manufacturers will now be required to conduct studies to prove safety and effectiveness in humans.
There has been evidence in animal and in vitro studies that triclosan and triclocarban are endocrine disruptors, Dr. Kweder said.
With the antibacterial soaps, "there are unknowns and even a slight potential for a risk," she said. "We think consumers ought to know, and we ought to know, what the benefits of these products are."
The rule is open for comment until June 2014. The antibacterial soaps are allowed to remain on the market until the agency finalizes its proposal – not likely until September 2016, Dr. Kweder said. If manufacturers cannot demonstrate safety and effectiveness, the soaps will have to be reformulated without triclosan or relabeled to remove any antibacterial claims, Dr. Kweder said.
Manufacturers, however, said that they already have complied with agency requests for more data.
"We are perplexed that the Agency would suggest there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps are beneficial, as industry has long provided data and information about the safety and efficacy of these products," said the American Cleaning Institute and the Personal Care Products Council in a joint statement. "Our industry’s Topical Antimicrobial Coalition has submitted to FDA in-depth data showing that antibacterial soaps are more effective in killing germs when compared with non-antibacterial soaps," the statement said.
The groups said that they "will continue to operate in good faith to submit any new data that is available," but that manufacturers will submit comments to FDA "reaffirming that the use of antibacterial wash products in the home environment does not contribute to antibiotic or antibacterial resistance."
Consumer groups such as the NRDC, the Environmental Working Group, and others that have pressured the agency to more strictly regulate triclosan or remove it from the market applauded the FDA proposal, but noted that the examination of the ingredient has already been 30 years in the making.
Since the FDA first proposed regulating triclosan in 1978, it has revisited the topic multiple times, including at a 2005 advisory committee meeting. The panel said that the antibacterial soaps were ineffective and raised numerous safety concerns.
Mae Wu, an attorney with the NRDC’s health program, said in a statement that the agency’s proposal was "a good first step toward getting unsafe triclosan off the market."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has urged the FDA to finalize its triclosan ruling and also has encouraged manufacturers to stop using it, said in a statement that "chemicals like triclosan existed in a regulatory black hole" for decades. "I applaud the FDA for taking a step to restrict the use of this harmful and ineffective chemical that continues to pollute our bodies," he said.
The FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency, among other agencies, have acknowledged triclosan’s potential to interfere with the normal functioning of estrogen, testosterone, and thyroid hormone. The National Toxicology Program continues to study the chemical, but the FDA wants manufacturers to come forward with information, too, Dr. Kweder said.
The FDA did approve the use of triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste in 1997. The NRDC recently sued the FDA for access to its full records on that approval, saying that the ingredient should not be in toothpaste, either.
The FDA is not as concerned about the use in toothpaste, because it received data from the manufacturer showing that triclosan was safe and effective in that setting, Dr. Kweder said.
On Twitter @aliciaault
FDA wants manufacturers to show antibacterial soaps are safe, effective
The Food and Drug Administration is proposing that manufacturers of antibacterial soaps prove by 2016 that the products are safe and effective, or they must be reformulated or relabeled.
The agency said it currently is looking only at consumer products. It will address antibacterial soaps used in the health care and food preparation settings separately. The proposal also does not affect alcohol-based hand sanitizers, which the agency has already recognized as generally safe and effective.
The Dec. 16 proposed rule is the result of a settlement with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That nonprofit environmental group sued the agency in 2010 to force it to issue a final rule on a 1978 proposal to remove the antibacterial agent triclosan from certain consumer products.
The FDA now says that manufacturers will have to prove that antibacterial soaps and body washes – primarily made with triclosan and triclocarban – are safer and more effective than soap and water in preventing infection and the spread of germs. The agency estimates that at least 2,200 antibacterial soaps are on the market. Manufacturers have provided no evidence supporting their use, Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director of the Office of New Drugs at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a call with reporters. Those manufacturers will now be required to conduct studies to prove safety and effectiveness in humans.
There has been evidence in animal and in vitro studies that triclosan and triclocarban are endocrine disruptors, Dr. Kweder said.
With the antibacterial soaps, "there are unknowns and even a slight potential for a risk," she said. "We think consumers ought to know, and we ought to know, what the benefits of these products are."
The rule is open for comment until June 2014. The antibacterial soaps are allowed to remain on the market until the agency finalizes its proposal – not likely until September 2016, Dr. Kweder said. If manufacturers cannot demonstrate safety and effectiveness, the soaps will have to be reformulated without triclosan or relabeled to remove any antibacterial claims, Dr. Kweder said.
Manufacturers, however, said that they already have complied with agency requests for more data.
"We are perplexed that the Agency would suggest there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps are beneficial, as industry has long provided data and information about the safety and efficacy of these products," said the American Cleaning Institute and the Personal Care Products Council in a joint statement. "Our industry’s Topical Antimicrobial Coalition has submitted to FDA in-depth data showing that antibacterial soaps are more effective in killing germs when compared with non-antibacterial soaps," the statement said.
The groups said that they "will continue to operate in good faith to submit any new data that is available," but that manufacturers will submit comments to FDA "reaffirming that the use of antibacterial wash products in the home environment does not contribute to antibiotic or antibacterial resistance."
Consumer groups such as the NRDC, the Environmental Working Group, and others that have pressured the agency to more strictly regulate triclosan or remove it from the market applauded the FDA proposal, but noted that the examination of the ingredient has already been 30 years in the making.
Since the FDA first proposed regulating triclosan in 1978, it has revisited the topic multiple times, including at a 2005 advisory committee meeting. The panel said that the antibacterial soaps were ineffective and raised numerous safety concerns.
Mae Wu, an attorney with the NRDC’s health program, said in a statement that the agency’s proposal was "a good first step toward getting unsafe triclosan off the market."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has urged the FDA to finalize its triclosan ruling and also has encouraged manufacturers to stop using it, said in a statement that "chemicals like triclosan existed in a regulatory black hole" for decades. "I applaud the FDA for taking a step to restrict the use of this harmful and ineffective chemical that continues to pollute our bodies," he said.
The FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency, among other agencies, have acknowledged triclosan’s potential to interfere with the normal functioning of estrogen, testosterone, and thyroid hormone. The National Toxicology Program continues to study the chemical, but the FDA wants manufacturers to come forward with information, too, Dr. Kweder said.
The FDA did approve the use of triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste in 1997. The NRDC recently sued the FDA for access to its full records on that approval, saying that the ingredient should not be in toothpaste, either.
The FDA is not as concerned about the use in toothpaste, because it received data from the manufacturer showing that triclosan was safe and effective in that setting, Dr. Kweder said.
On Twitter @aliciaault
The Food and Drug Administration is proposing that manufacturers of antibacterial soaps prove by 2016 that the products are safe and effective, or they must be reformulated or relabeled.
The agency said it currently is looking only at consumer products. It will address antibacterial soaps used in the health care and food preparation settings separately. The proposal also does not affect alcohol-based hand sanitizers, which the agency has already recognized as generally safe and effective.
The Dec. 16 proposed rule is the result of a settlement with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That nonprofit environmental group sued the agency in 2010 to force it to issue a final rule on a 1978 proposal to remove the antibacterial agent triclosan from certain consumer products.
The FDA now says that manufacturers will have to prove that antibacterial soaps and body washes – primarily made with triclosan and triclocarban – are safer and more effective than soap and water in preventing infection and the spread of germs. The agency estimates that at least 2,200 antibacterial soaps are on the market. Manufacturers have provided no evidence supporting their use, Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director of the Office of New Drugs at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a call with reporters. Those manufacturers will now be required to conduct studies to prove safety and effectiveness in humans.
There has been evidence in animal and in vitro studies that triclosan and triclocarban are endocrine disruptors, Dr. Kweder said.
With the antibacterial soaps, "there are unknowns and even a slight potential for a risk," she said. "We think consumers ought to know, and we ought to know, what the benefits of these products are."
The rule is open for comment until June 2014. The antibacterial soaps are allowed to remain on the market until the agency finalizes its proposal – not likely until September 2016, Dr. Kweder said. If manufacturers cannot demonstrate safety and effectiveness, the soaps will have to be reformulated without triclosan or relabeled to remove any antibacterial claims, Dr. Kweder said.
Manufacturers, however, said that they already have complied with agency requests for more data.
"We are perplexed that the Agency would suggest there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps are beneficial, as industry has long provided data and information about the safety and efficacy of these products," said the American Cleaning Institute and the Personal Care Products Council in a joint statement. "Our industry’s Topical Antimicrobial Coalition has submitted to FDA in-depth data showing that antibacterial soaps are more effective in killing germs when compared with non-antibacterial soaps," the statement said.
The groups said that they "will continue to operate in good faith to submit any new data that is available," but that manufacturers will submit comments to FDA "reaffirming that the use of antibacterial wash products in the home environment does not contribute to antibiotic or antibacterial resistance."
Consumer groups such as the NRDC, the Environmental Working Group, and others that have pressured the agency to more strictly regulate triclosan or remove it from the market applauded the FDA proposal, but noted that the examination of the ingredient has already been 30 years in the making.
Since the FDA first proposed regulating triclosan in 1978, it has revisited the topic multiple times, including at a 2005 advisory committee meeting. The panel said that the antibacterial soaps were ineffective and raised numerous safety concerns.
Mae Wu, an attorney with the NRDC’s health program, said in a statement that the agency’s proposal was "a good first step toward getting unsafe triclosan off the market."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has urged the FDA to finalize its triclosan ruling and also has encouraged manufacturers to stop using it, said in a statement that "chemicals like triclosan existed in a regulatory black hole" for decades. "I applaud the FDA for taking a step to restrict the use of this harmful and ineffective chemical that continues to pollute our bodies," he said.
The FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency, among other agencies, have acknowledged triclosan’s potential to interfere with the normal functioning of estrogen, testosterone, and thyroid hormone. The National Toxicology Program continues to study the chemical, but the FDA wants manufacturers to come forward with information, too, Dr. Kweder said.
The FDA did approve the use of triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste in 1997. The NRDC recently sued the FDA for access to its full records on that approval, saying that the ingredient should not be in toothpaste, either.
The FDA is not as concerned about the use in toothpaste, because it received data from the manufacturer showing that triclosan was safe and effective in that setting, Dr. Kweder said.
On Twitter @aliciaault
The Food and Drug Administration is proposing that manufacturers of antibacterial soaps prove by 2016 that the products are safe and effective, or they must be reformulated or relabeled.
The agency said it currently is looking only at consumer products. It will address antibacterial soaps used in the health care and food preparation settings separately. The proposal also does not affect alcohol-based hand sanitizers, which the agency has already recognized as generally safe and effective.
The Dec. 16 proposed rule is the result of a settlement with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That nonprofit environmental group sued the agency in 2010 to force it to issue a final rule on a 1978 proposal to remove the antibacterial agent triclosan from certain consumer products.
The FDA now says that manufacturers will have to prove that antibacterial soaps and body washes – primarily made with triclosan and triclocarban – are safer and more effective than soap and water in preventing infection and the spread of germs. The agency estimates that at least 2,200 antibacterial soaps are on the market. Manufacturers have provided no evidence supporting their use, Dr. Sandra Kweder, deputy director of the Office of New Drugs at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a call with reporters. Those manufacturers will now be required to conduct studies to prove safety and effectiveness in humans.
There has been evidence in animal and in vitro studies that triclosan and triclocarban are endocrine disruptors, Dr. Kweder said.
With the antibacterial soaps, "there are unknowns and even a slight potential for a risk," she said. "We think consumers ought to know, and we ought to know, what the benefits of these products are."
The rule is open for comment until June 2014. The antibacterial soaps are allowed to remain on the market until the agency finalizes its proposal – not likely until September 2016, Dr. Kweder said. If manufacturers cannot demonstrate safety and effectiveness, the soaps will have to be reformulated without triclosan or relabeled to remove any antibacterial claims, Dr. Kweder said.
Manufacturers, however, said that they already have complied with agency requests for more data.
"We are perplexed that the Agency would suggest there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps are beneficial, as industry has long provided data and information about the safety and efficacy of these products," said the American Cleaning Institute and the Personal Care Products Council in a joint statement. "Our industry’s Topical Antimicrobial Coalition has submitted to FDA in-depth data showing that antibacterial soaps are more effective in killing germs when compared with non-antibacterial soaps," the statement said.
The groups said that they "will continue to operate in good faith to submit any new data that is available," but that manufacturers will submit comments to FDA "reaffirming that the use of antibacterial wash products in the home environment does not contribute to antibiotic or antibacterial resistance."
Consumer groups such as the NRDC, the Environmental Working Group, and others that have pressured the agency to more strictly regulate triclosan or remove it from the market applauded the FDA proposal, but noted that the examination of the ingredient has already been 30 years in the making.
Since the FDA first proposed regulating triclosan in 1978, it has revisited the topic multiple times, including at a 2005 advisory committee meeting. The panel said that the antibacterial soaps were ineffective and raised numerous safety concerns.
Mae Wu, an attorney with the NRDC’s health program, said in a statement that the agency’s proposal was "a good first step toward getting unsafe triclosan off the market."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has urged the FDA to finalize its triclosan ruling and also has encouraged manufacturers to stop using it, said in a statement that "chemicals like triclosan existed in a regulatory black hole" for decades. "I applaud the FDA for taking a step to restrict the use of this harmful and ineffective chemical that continues to pollute our bodies," he said.
The FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency, among other agencies, have acknowledged triclosan’s potential to interfere with the normal functioning of estrogen, testosterone, and thyroid hormone. The National Toxicology Program continues to study the chemical, but the FDA wants manufacturers to come forward with information, too, Dr. Kweder said.
The FDA did approve the use of triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste in 1997. The NRDC recently sued the FDA for access to its full records on that approval, saying that the ingredient should not be in toothpaste, either.
The FDA is not as concerned about the use in toothpaste, because it received data from the manufacturer showing that triclosan was safe and effective in that setting, Dr. Kweder said.
On Twitter @aliciaault
