User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Guidelines Aren’t For Everybody
An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.
He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.
What medication adjustments would you recommend?
A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime
B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart
C. Begin semaglutide
D. Begin metformin
E. No changes
I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.1
In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.
I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.
I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.
The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.4 Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.
Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.
2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.
3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.
4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.
An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.
He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.
What medication adjustments would you recommend?
A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime
B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart
C. Begin semaglutide
D. Begin metformin
E. No changes
I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.1
In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.
I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.
I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.
The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.4 Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.
Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.
2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.
3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.
4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.
An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.
He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.
What medication adjustments would you recommend?
A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime
B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart
C. Begin semaglutide
D. Begin metformin
E. No changes
I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.1
In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.
I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.
I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.
The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.4 Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.
Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.
2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.
3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.
4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.
Doc Sues State Over ‘Antiquated’ Telehealth Rules
Telemedicine visits skyrocketed during the pandemic, but
In the complaint filed on December 13 in New Jersey District Court, plaintiff Shannon MacDonald, MD, radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that New Jersey’s telehealth rules make it illegal for her and other out-of-state specialists to consult with and treat residents who could benefit from their unique expertise, unless they first obtain licensure through the medical board.
While she currently maintains licenses in six states, New Jersey’s application process can take several months and requires an initial fee of $550, plus additional expenses for a background check and fingerprinting, court documents said.
Physicians providing telehealth services to New Jersey residents without a state-authorized medical license are subject to up to 5 years in prison and criminal and civil fines exceeding $10,000.
“Every day, my ethical obligations to my patients are in direct conflict with the legal framework,” said Dr. MacDonald.
She and coplaintiff Paul Gardner, MD, neurosurgical codirector of the Center for Cranial Base Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, are represented by the public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, which recently sued Louisiana’s governor over its medical board diversity rules.
The lawsuit names Otto Sabando, DO, president of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners. Representatives for Dr. Sabando and the medical board did not respond to a request for comment.
The complaint describes the care Dr. MacDonald provided several years before the pandemic for an out-of-state patient, J.A., also named as a plaintiff, who was diagnosed with pineoblastoma at 18 months old.
After initially undergoing treatment in New York, court documents indicate that J.A.’s medical team referred him to Dr. MacDonald “because of her nationally recognized expertise in proton therapy” targeting rare childhood cancers. Dr. MacDonald remotely reviewed J.A.’s scans and discussed options before his family pursued treatment with her in Boston.
Dr. MacDonald said that allowing more patients like J.A. to use telehealth to access services when specialists are unavailable in their state would go a long way toward achieving health equity. She says it could reduce the financial burden of travel and lodging expenses and provide timely consultations and follow-up care.
Many states, including New Jersey, waived or eased licensing regulations during the pandemic so physicians could temporarily practice in other states. Since those emergency orders have ended, physicians must again seek licensure in the states where their patients are located or potentially be subjected to fines or other penalties by state medical boards.
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a law in 2022 joining the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, an agreement that offers a streamlined process for physicians already licensed in their home states to obtain licensure in 37 other member states as well as the District of Columbia and Territory of Guam. However, the lawsuit alleges that applications still take weeks and pose significant administrative and financial barriers for physicians.
Telehealth in a Post-COVID World
“Until COVID, we didn’t realize that a telephone call really was practicing medicine,” said Dr. MacDonald. “After being allowed to do telemedicine consultations across state lines for a year and 2 years for follow-ups, I thought it would last forever, but it’s placed a spotlight on what we cannot do.”
Dr. MacDonald, who recently penned a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, said laws regarding interstate practice are outdated.
“They made sense in the preindustrial era when you had to be in the same location as your patient, but they make little sense in the modern era when distance disappears over the Internet or telephone,” she said.
The issue isn’t unique to New Jersey. Caleb Trotter, JD, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said that 30 states prohibit doctors from conducting telemedicine services in states where they are not licensed.
“Some hospitals instruct doctors and administrators to ask the patient where they are physically located at the beginning of a telehealth appointment, and if it isn’t a state where the physician is licensed, they are instructed to end the appointment immediately,” Mr. Trotter said. “A win in New Jersey would solve a very real problem for these [patients] of not having convenient legal access to specialists.”
Neither Dr. MacDonald nor Dr. Gardner have had any enforcement actions taken against them, said Mr. Trotter. Still, he said the New Jersey attorney general’s office reminded physicians last year that state licensure rules apply to out-of-state doctors using telemedicine to conduct follow-up appointments.
In November, the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, proposed telemedicine reforms, including exceptions for the care of established patients and screening for specialty referrals.
Dr. MacDonald hopes the lawsuit will increase awareness of telehealth laws and spur changes.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Telemedicine visits skyrocketed during the pandemic, but
In the complaint filed on December 13 in New Jersey District Court, plaintiff Shannon MacDonald, MD, radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that New Jersey’s telehealth rules make it illegal for her and other out-of-state specialists to consult with and treat residents who could benefit from their unique expertise, unless they first obtain licensure through the medical board.
While she currently maintains licenses in six states, New Jersey’s application process can take several months and requires an initial fee of $550, plus additional expenses for a background check and fingerprinting, court documents said.
Physicians providing telehealth services to New Jersey residents without a state-authorized medical license are subject to up to 5 years in prison and criminal and civil fines exceeding $10,000.
“Every day, my ethical obligations to my patients are in direct conflict with the legal framework,” said Dr. MacDonald.
She and coplaintiff Paul Gardner, MD, neurosurgical codirector of the Center for Cranial Base Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, are represented by the public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, which recently sued Louisiana’s governor over its medical board diversity rules.
The lawsuit names Otto Sabando, DO, president of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners. Representatives for Dr. Sabando and the medical board did not respond to a request for comment.
The complaint describes the care Dr. MacDonald provided several years before the pandemic for an out-of-state patient, J.A., also named as a plaintiff, who was diagnosed with pineoblastoma at 18 months old.
After initially undergoing treatment in New York, court documents indicate that J.A.’s medical team referred him to Dr. MacDonald “because of her nationally recognized expertise in proton therapy” targeting rare childhood cancers. Dr. MacDonald remotely reviewed J.A.’s scans and discussed options before his family pursued treatment with her in Boston.
Dr. MacDonald said that allowing more patients like J.A. to use telehealth to access services when specialists are unavailable in their state would go a long way toward achieving health equity. She says it could reduce the financial burden of travel and lodging expenses and provide timely consultations and follow-up care.
Many states, including New Jersey, waived or eased licensing regulations during the pandemic so physicians could temporarily practice in other states. Since those emergency orders have ended, physicians must again seek licensure in the states where their patients are located or potentially be subjected to fines or other penalties by state medical boards.
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a law in 2022 joining the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, an agreement that offers a streamlined process for physicians already licensed in their home states to obtain licensure in 37 other member states as well as the District of Columbia and Territory of Guam. However, the lawsuit alleges that applications still take weeks and pose significant administrative and financial barriers for physicians.
Telehealth in a Post-COVID World
“Until COVID, we didn’t realize that a telephone call really was practicing medicine,” said Dr. MacDonald. “After being allowed to do telemedicine consultations across state lines for a year and 2 years for follow-ups, I thought it would last forever, but it’s placed a spotlight on what we cannot do.”
Dr. MacDonald, who recently penned a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, said laws regarding interstate practice are outdated.
“They made sense in the preindustrial era when you had to be in the same location as your patient, but they make little sense in the modern era when distance disappears over the Internet or telephone,” she said.
The issue isn’t unique to New Jersey. Caleb Trotter, JD, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said that 30 states prohibit doctors from conducting telemedicine services in states where they are not licensed.
“Some hospitals instruct doctors and administrators to ask the patient where they are physically located at the beginning of a telehealth appointment, and if it isn’t a state where the physician is licensed, they are instructed to end the appointment immediately,” Mr. Trotter said. “A win in New Jersey would solve a very real problem for these [patients] of not having convenient legal access to specialists.”
Neither Dr. MacDonald nor Dr. Gardner have had any enforcement actions taken against them, said Mr. Trotter. Still, he said the New Jersey attorney general’s office reminded physicians last year that state licensure rules apply to out-of-state doctors using telemedicine to conduct follow-up appointments.
In November, the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, proposed telemedicine reforms, including exceptions for the care of established patients and screening for specialty referrals.
Dr. MacDonald hopes the lawsuit will increase awareness of telehealth laws and spur changes.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Telemedicine visits skyrocketed during the pandemic, but
In the complaint filed on December 13 in New Jersey District Court, plaintiff Shannon MacDonald, MD, radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that New Jersey’s telehealth rules make it illegal for her and other out-of-state specialists to consult with and treat residents who could benefit from their unique expertise, unless they first obtain licensure through the medical board.
While she currently maintains licenses in six states, New Jersey’s application process can take several months and requires an initial fee of $550, plus additional expenses for a background check and fingerprinting, court documents said.
Physicians providing telehealth services to New Jersey residents without a state-authorized medical license are subject to up to 5 years in prison and criminal and civil fines exceeding $10,000.
“Every day, my ethical obligations to my patients are in direct conflict with the legal framework,” said Dr. MacDonald.
She and coplaintiff Paul Gardner, MD, neurosurgical codirector of the Center for Cranial Base Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, are represented by the public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, which recently sued Louisiana’s governor over its medical board diversity rules.
The lawsuit names Otto Sabando, DO, president of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners. Representatives for Dr. Sabando and the medical board did not respond to a request for comment.
The complaint describes the care Dr. MacDonald provided several years before the pandemic for an out-of-state patient, J.A., also named as a plaintiff, who was diagnosed with pineoblastoma at 18 months old.
After initially undergoing treatment in New York, court documents indicate that J.A.’s medical team referred him to Dr. MacDonald “because of her nationally recognized expertise in proton therapy” targeting rare childhood cancers. Dr. MacDonald remotely reviewed J.A.’s scans and discussed options before his family pursued treatment with her in Boston.
Dr. MacDonald said that allowing more patients like J.A. to use telehealth to access services when specialists are unavailable in their state would go a long way toward achieving health equity. She says it could reduce the financial burden of travel and lodging expenses and provide timely consultations and follow-up care.
Many states, including New Jersey, waived or eased licensing regulations during the pandemic so physicians could temporarily practice in other states. Since those emergency orders have ended, physicians must again seek licensure in the states where their patients are located or potentially be subjected to fines or other penalties by state medical boards.
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a law in 2022 joining the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, an agreement that offers a streamlined process for physicians already licensed in their home states to obtain licensure in 37 other member states as well as the District of Columbia and Territory of Guam. However, the lawsuit alleges that applications still take weeks and pose significant administrative and financial barriers for physicians.
Telehealth in a Post-COVID World
“Until COVID, we didn’t realize that a telephone call really was practicing medicine,” said Dr. MacDonald. “After being allowed to do telemedicine consultations across state lines for a year and 2 years for follow-ups, I thought it would last forever, but it’s placed a spotlight on what we cannot do.”
Dr. MacDonald, who recently penned a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, said laws regarding interstate practice are outdated.
“They made sense in the preindustrial era when you had to be in the same location as your patient, but they make little sense in the modern era when distance disappears over the Internet or telephone,” she said.
The issue isn’t unique to New Jersey. Caleb Trotter, JD, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said that 30 states prohibit doctors from conducting telemedicine services in states where they are not licensed.
“Some hospitals instruct doctors and administrators to ask the patient where they are physically located at the beginning of a telehealth appointment, and if it isn’t a state where the physician is licensed, they are instructed to end the appointment immediately,” Mr. Trotter said. “A win in New Jersey would solve a very real problem for these [patients] of not having convenient legal access to specialists.”
Neither Dr. MacDonald nor Dr. Gardner have had any enforcement actions taken against them, said Mr. Trotter. Still, he said the New Jersey attorney general’s office reminded physicians last year that state licensure rules apply to out-of-state doctors using telemedicine to conduct follow-up appointments.
In November, the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, proposed telemedicine reforms, including exceptions for the care of established patients and screening for specialty referrals.
Dr. MacDonald hopes the lawsuit will increase awareness of telehealth laws and spur changes.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Mega Malpractice Verdicts Against Physicians on the Rise
In December, in what’s known as the “Take Care of Maya” case, a Florida jury returned a record $261 million verdict against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, for its treatment of a young patient and her family after an emergency room visit.
A month earlier, in New York, a jury ordered Westchester Medical Center Health Network to pay $120 million to a patient and his family following delayed stroke care that resulted in brain damage.
Mega malpractice awards like these are rising against physicians and hospitals around the country, according to new data from TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts.
“2023 blew away every record previously set among high medical malpractice verdicts,” said Richard Henderson, senior vice president for TransRe.
In 2023, there were 57 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, the data showed. Slightly more than half of those reached $25 million or more.
From 2012 to 2022, verdicts of $10 million or more ranged from 34 in 2013 to 52 in 2022, TransRe research found.
While New York, Illinois, and Florida typically saw the highest dollar verdicts in previous years, so-called “nuclear” verdicts now occur in states like Utah and Georgia where they once were uncommon, said Robert E. White Jr., president of TDC Group and The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer for physicians.
A rollback of tort reforms across the country is one contributor, he said. For example, Georgia’s cap on noneconomic damages is among those that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts. Utah’s cap on noneconomic damages still stands, but the limit was deemed unconstitutional in wrongful death cases. In 2019, a portion of Utah›s pre-litigation panel process was also struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.
“We used to be able to predict where these high verdicts would occur,” Mr. White said. “We can’t predict it anymore.”
Research shows a majority of malpractice cases are dropped or settled before trial, and claims that go before juries usually end in doctors’ favor. Plaintiffs’ attorneys cite large jury verdicts in similar cases to induce settlements and higher payouts, Mr. White said.
And while mega verdicts rarely stick, they can have lasting effects on future claims. The awards lead to larger settlement demands from plaintiffs and drive up the cost to resolve claims, according to Mr. Henderson and Mr. White.
“Verdicts are the yardstick by which all settlements are measured,” Mr. White said. “That’s where the damage is done.” The prospect of a mega verdict can make insurers leery of fighting some malpractice cases and motivate them to offer bigger settlements to stay out of the courtroom, he added.
Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?
There’s no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Mr. Henderson said.
One theory is that plaintiffs’ attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.
Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.
“Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don’t want an angry jury,” Mr. Henderson said. “For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became ‘the bad guys.’ ”
“People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits,” added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.
Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Mr. Burns said.
“Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth,” he said.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, Mr. White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.
Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, Mr. White said.
“I am concerned that jurors are trying to right social wrongs rather than judging cases on the facts presented to them,” added Mike Stinson, vice president for policy and legal affairs for the Medical Professional Liability Association.
Third-party litigation financing also can lead to mega verdicts. That’s an emerging practice in which companies unrelated to a lawsuit provide capital to plaintiffs in return for a portion of any financial award. The firms essentially “invest” in the litigation.
“What this does is provide an additional financial backdrop for plaintiffs,” Mr. Henderson said. “It allows them to dig in harder on cases. They can hold out for higher numbers, and if nothing else, it can prolong litigation.”
Do High Awards Actually Stick?
Multimillion-dollar verdicts may grab headlines, but do plaintiffs actually receive them?
Rarely, said TransRe, which tracks the final outcomes of verdicts. In many cases, large verdicts are reduced on appeal.
In the Maya case, which involved child protection authorities, a judge later lowered the damages against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital by $47.5 million.
A federal judge in October, for example, rejected a record $110 million medical malpractice award in Minnesota, reducing it to $10 million. The district judge ruled the award was “shockingly excessive” and that the plaintiff should either accept the $10 million award or retry the case.
After a verdict is awarded, the defendant typically challenges the award, and the case goes through the appellate pipeline, Mr. Henderson explained. A judge may reduce some elements of the verdict, he said, but more often, the plaintiff and defendant agree on a compromised figure.
Seattle medical liability defense attorney Jennifer Crisera has experienced this firsthand. She recalled a recent case where a plaintiff’s attorney demanded what she describes as an unreasonable amount to settle a claim. Ms. Crisera did not want to give exact numbers but said the plaintiff made an 8-figure demand and the defense offered a low 7-figure range.
“My impression was that plaintiff’s counsel believed that they could get a nuclear verdict from the jury, so they kept their settlement demand artificially high,” she said. “The division between the numbers was way too high. Ultimately, we had to let a jury decide the value.”
The plaintiff won the case, and the verdict was much less than the settlement demand, she said. Even so, the defense incurred trial costs, and the health provider was forced to endure the emotional stress of a trial that could have been avoided, Ms. Crisera said.
Higher medical malpractice premiums are another consequence of massive awards.
Premium rates are associated with how much insurers pay on average for cases and how frequently they are making payouts, Mr. White said.
Medical liability insurance premiums for physicians have steadily increased since 2019, according to data from the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes liability insurance premiums. The Monitor studies insurance premium data from insurers that cover internists, general surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
From 2019 to 2023, average premium rates for physicians increased between 1.1% and 3% each year in states without patient compensation funds, according to Monitor data.
“Nuclear verdicts are a real driver of the industry’s underwriting losses and remain top of mind for every malpractice insurance company,” said Michael Matray, editor for the Medical Liability Monitor. “Responses to this year’s rate survey questionnaire indicate that most responding companies have experienced an increase in claims greater than $1 million and claims greater than $5 million during the past 2 years.”
However, increases vary widely by region and among counties. In Montgomery County, Alabama, for instance, premiums for internists rose by 24% from 2022 to 2023, from $8,231 to $10,240. Premiums for Montgomery County general surgeons rose by 11.9% from 2022 to 2023, from $30,761 to $34,426, according to survey data.
In several counties in Illinois (Adams, Knox, Peoria, and Rock Island), premiums for some internists rose by 15% from $24,041 to $27,783, and premiums for some surgeons increased by 27% from $60,202 to $76,461, according to survey data. Some internists in Catoosa County, Georgia, meanwhile, paid $17,831 in 2023, up from $16,313 in 2022. Some surgeons in Catoosa County paid $65,616 in 2023, up from $60,032 in 2022. Inflation could be one factor behind higher liability premium rates. Claim severity is a key driver of higher premium rates, Mr. White added.
“We have not seen stability in claims severity,” he said. “It is continuing to go up and, in all likelihood, it will drive [premium] rates up further from this point.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In December, in what’s known as the “Take Care of Maya” case, a Florida jury returned a record $261 million verdict against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, for its treatment of a young patient and her family after an emergency room visit.
A month earlier, in New York, a jury ordered Westchester Medical Center Health Network to pay $120 million to a patient and his family following delayed stroke care that resulted in brain damage.
Mega malpractice awards like these are rising against physicians and hospitals around the country, according to new data from TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts.
“2023 blew away every record previously set among high medical malpractice verdicts,” said Richard Henderson, senior vice president for TransRe.
In 2023, there were 57 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, the data showed. Slightly more than half of those reached $25 million or more.
From 2012 to 2022, verdicts of $10 million or more ranged from 34 in 2013 to 52 in 2022, TransRe research found.
While New York, Illinois, and Florida typically saw the highest dollar verdicts in previous years, so-called “nuclear” verdicts now occur in states like Utah and Georgia where they once were uncommon, said Robert E. White Jr., president of TDC Group and The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer for physicians.
A rollback of tort reforms across the country is one contributor, he said. For example, Georgia’s cap on noneconomic damages is among those that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts. Utah’s cap on noneconomic damages still stands, but the limit was deemed unconstitutional in wrongful death cases. In 2019, a portion of Utah›s pre-litigation panel process was also struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.
“We used to be able to predict where these high verdicts would occur,” Mr. White said. “We can’t predict it anymore.”
Research shows a majority of malpractice cases are dropped or settled before trial, and claims that go before juries usually end in doctors’ favor. Plaintiffs’ attorneys cite large jury verdicts in similar cases to induce settlements and higher payouts, Mr. White said.
And while mega verdicts rarely stick, they can have lasting effects on future claims. The awards lead to larger settlement demands from plaintiffs and drive up the cost to resolve claims, according to Mr. Henderson and Mr. White.
“Verdicts are the yardstick by which all settlements are measured,” Mr. White said. “That’s where the damage is done.” The prospect of a mega verdict can make insurers leery of fighting some malpractice cases and motivate them to offer bigger settlements to stay out of the courtroom, he added.
Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?
There’s no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Mr. Henderson said.
One theory is that plaintiffs’ attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.
Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.
“Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don’t want an angry jury,” Mr. Henderson said. “For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became ‘the bad guys.’ ”
“People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits,” added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.
Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Mr. Burns said.
“Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth,” he said.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, Mr. White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.
Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, Mr. White said.
“I am concerned that jurors are trying to right social wrongs rather than judging cases on the facts presented to them,” added Mike Stinson, vice president for policy and legal affairs for the Medical Professional Liability Association.
Third-party litigation financing also can lead to mega verdicts. That’s an emerging practice in which companies unrelated to a lawsuit provide capital to plaintiffs in return for a portion of any financial award. The firms essentially “invest” in the litigation.
“What this does is provide an additional financial backdrop for plaintiffs,” Mr. Henderson said. “It allows them to dig in harder on cases. They can hold out for higher numbers, and if nothing else, it can prolong litigation.”
Do High Awards Actually Stick?
Multimillion-dollar verdicts may grab headlines, but do plaintiffs actually receive them?
Rarely, said TransRe, which tracks the final outcomes of verdicts. In many cases, large verdicts are reduced on appeal.
In the Maya case, which involved child protection authorities, a judge later lowered the damages against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital by $47.5 million.
A federal judge in October, for example, rejected a record $110 million medical malpractice award in Minnesota, reducing it to $10 million. The district judge ruled the award was “shockingly excessive” and that the plaintiff should either accept the $10 million award or retry the case.
After a verdict is awarded, the defendant typically challenges the award, and the case goes through the appellate pipeline, Mr. Henderson explained. A judge may reduce some elements of the verdict, he said, but more often, the plaintiff and defendant agree on a compromised figure.
Seattle medical liability defense attorney Jennifer Crisera has experienced this firsthand. She recalled a recent case where a plaintiff’s attorney demanded what she describes as an unreasonable amount to settle a claim. Ms. Crisera did not want to give exact numbers but said the plaintiff made an 8-figure demand and the defense offered a low 7-figure range.
“My impression was that plaintiff’s counsel believed that they could get a nuclear verdict from the jury, so they kept their settlement demand artificially high,” she said. “The division between the numbers was way too high. Ultimately, we had to let a jury decide the value.”
The plaintiff won the case, and the verdict was much less than the settlement demand, she said. Even so, the defense incurred trial costs, and the health provider was forced to endure the emotional stress of a trial that could have been avoided, Ms. Crisera said.
Higher medical malpractice premiums are another consequence of massive awards.
Premium rates are associated with how much insurers pay on average for cases and how frequently they are making payouts, Mr. White said.
Medical liability insurance premiums for physicians have steadily increased since 2019, according to data from the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes liability insurance premiums. The Monitor studies insurance premium data from insurers that cover internists, general surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
From 2019 to 2023, average premium rates for physicians increased between 1.1% and 3% each year in states without patient compensation funds, according to Monitor data.
“Nuclear verdicts are a real driver of the industry’s underwriting losses and remain top of mind for every malpractice insurance company,” said Michael Matray, editor for the Medical Liability Monitor. “Responses to this year’s rate survey questionnaire indicate that most responding companies have experienced an increase in claims greater than $1 million and claims greater than $5 million during the past 2 years.”
However, increases vary widely by region and among counties. In Montgomery County, Alabama, for instance, premiums for internists rose by 24% from 2022 to 2023, from $8,231 to $10,240. Premiums for Montgomery County general surgeons rose by 11.9% from 2022 to 2023, from $30,761 to $34,426, according to survey data.
In several counties in Illinois (Adams, Knox, Peoria, and Rock Island), premiums for some internists rose by 15% from $24,041 to $27,783, and premiums for some surgeons increased by 27% from $60,202 to $76,461, according to survey data. Some internists in Catoosa County, Georgia, meanwhile, paid $17,831 in 2023, up from $16,313 in 2022. Some surgeons in Catoosa County paid $65,616 in 2023, up from $60,032 in 2022. Inflation could be one factor behind higher liability premium rates. Claim severity is a key driver of higher premium rates, Mr. White added.
“We have not seen stability in claims severity,” he said. “It is continuing to go up and, in all likelihood, it will drive [premium] rates up further from this point.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In December, in what’s known as the “Take Care of Maya” case, a Florida jury returned a record $261 million verdict against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, for its treatment of a young patient and her family after an emergency room visit.
A month earlier, in New York, a jury ordered Westchester Medical Center Health Network to pay $120 million to a patient and his family following delayed stroke care that resulted in brain damage.
Mega malpractice awards like these are rising against physicians and hospitals around the country, according to new data from TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts.
“2023 blew away every record previously set among high medical malpractice verdicts,” said Richard Henderson, senior vice president for TransRe.
In 2023, there were 57 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, the data showed. Slightly more than half of those reached $25 million or more.
From 2012 to 2022, verdicts of $10 million or more ranged from 34 in 2013 to 52 in 2022, TransRe research found.
While New York, Illinois, and Florida typically saw the highest dollar verdicts in previous years, so-called “nuclear” verdicts now occur in states like Utah and Georgia where they once were uncommon, said Robert E. White Jr., president of TDC Group and The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer for physicians.
A rollback of tort reforms across the country is one contributor, he said. For example, Georgia’s cap on noneconomic damages is among those that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts. Utah’s cap on noneconomic damages still stands, but the limit was deemed unconstitutional in wrongful death cases. In 2019, a portion of Utah›s pre-litigation panel process was also struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.
“We used to be able to predict where these high verdicts would occur,” Mr. White said. “We can’t predict it anymore.”
Research shows a majority of malpractice cases are dropped or settled before trial, and claims that go before juries usually end in doctors’ favor. Plaintiffs’ attorneys cite large jury verdicts in similar cases to induce settlements and higher payouts, Mr. White said.
And while mega verdicts rarely stick, they can have lasting effects on future claims. The awards lead to larger settlement demands from plaintiffs and drive up the cost to resolve claims, according to Mr. Henderson and Mr. White.
“Verdicts are the yardstick by which all settlements are measured,” Mr. White said. “That’s where the damage is done.” The prospect of a mega verdict can make insurers leery of fighting some malpractice cases and motivate them to offer bigger settlements to stay out of the courtroom, he added.
Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?
There’s no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Mr. Henderson said.
One theory is that plaintiffs’ attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.
Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.
“Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don’t want an angry jury,” Mr. Henderson said. “For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became ‘the bad guys.’ ”
“People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits,” added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.
Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Mr. Burns said.
“Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth,” he said.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, Mr. White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.
Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, Mr. White said.
“I am concerned that jurors are trying to right social wrongs rather than judging cases on the facts presented to them,” added Mike Stinson, vice president for policy and legal affairs for the Medical Professional Liability Association.
Third-party litigation financing also can lead to mega verdicts. That’s an emerging practice in which companies unrelated to a lawsuit provide capital to plaintiffs in return for a portion of any financial award. The firms essentially “invest” in the litigation.
“What this does is provide an additional financial backdrop for plaintiffs,” Mr. Henderson said. “It allows them to dig in harder on cases. They can hold out for higher numbers, and if nothing else, it can prolong litigation.”
Do High Awards Actually Stick?
Multimillion-dollar verdicts may grab headlines, but do plaintiffs actually receive them?
Rarely, said TransRe, which tracks the final outcomes of verdicts. In many cases, large verdicts are reduced on appeal.
In the Maya case, which involved child protection authorities, a judge later lowered the damages against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital by $47.5 million.
A federal judge in October, for example, rejected a record $110 million medical malpractice award in Minnesota, reducing it to $10 million. The district judge ruled the award was “shockingly excessive” and that the plaintiff should either accept the $10 million award or retry the case.
After a verdict is awarded, the defendant typically challenges the award, and the case goes through the appellate pipeline, Mr. Henderson explained. A judge may reduce some elements of the verdict, he said, but more often, the plaintiff and defendant agree on a compromised figure.
Seattle medical liability defense attorney Jennifer Crisera has experienced this firsthand. She recalled a recent case where a plaintiff’s attorney demanded what she describes as an unreasonable amount to settle a claim. Ms. Crisera did not want to give exact numbers but said the plaintiff made an 8-figure demand and the defense offered a low 7-figure range.
“My impression was that plaintiff’s counsel believed that they could get a nuclear verdict from the jury, so they kept their settlement demand artificially high,” she said. “The division between the numbers was way too high. Ultimately, we had to let a jury decide the value.”
The plaintiff won the case, and the verdict was much less than the settlement demand, she said. Even so, the defense incurred trial costs, and the health provider was forced to endure the emotional stress of a trial that could have been avoided, Ms. Crisera said.
Higher medical malpractice premiums are another consequence of massive awards.
Premium rates are associated with how much insurers pay on average for cases and how frequently they are making payouts, Mr. White said.
Medical liability insurance premiums for physicians have steadily increased since 2019, according to data from the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes liability insurance premiums. The Monitor studies insurance premium data from insurers that cover internists, general surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists.
From 2019 to 2023, average premium rates for physicians increased between 1.1% and 3% each year in states without patient compensation funds, according to Monitor data.
“Nuclear verdicts are a real driver of the industry’s underwriting losses and remain top of mind for every malpractice insurance company,” said Michael Matray, editor for the Medical Liability Monitor. “Responses to this year’s rate survey questionnaire indicate that most responding companies have experienced an increase in claims greater than $1 million and claims greater than $5 million during the past 2 years.”
However, increases vary widely by region and among counties. In Montgomery County, Alabama, for instance, premiums for internists rose by 24% from 2022 to 2023, from $8,231 to $10,240. Premiums for Montgomery County general surgeons rose by 11.9% from 2022 to 2023, from $30,761 to $34,426, according to survey data.
In several counties in Illinois (Adams, Knox, Peoria, and Rock Island), premiums for some internists rose by 15% from $24,041 to $27,783, and premiums for some surgeons increased by 27% from $60,202 to $76,461, according to survey data. Some internists in Catoosa County, Georgia, meanwhile, paid $17,831 in 2023, up from $16,313 in 2022. Some surgeons in Catoosa County paid $65,616 in 2023, up from $60,032 in 2022. Inflation could be one factor behind higher liability premium rates. Claim severity is a key driver of higher premium rates, Mr. White added.
“We have not seen stability in claims severity,” he said. “It is continuing to go up and, in all likelihood, it will drive [premium] rates up further from this point.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Injectable Weight Loss Drugs Pose Ethical Issues, Says Ethicist
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
There’s never been anything like the revolution in the treatment of obesity that we are now living through. Historically, there’s always been calorie counting and diets. Now, after a burst of interest in gastric bypass surgery, we have the amazing world of injectables. We all have heard about Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Wegovy.
These are being used by millions of Americans at this point, some on prescription for conditions like diabetes and some to bring about weight loss in prediabetes, or in some instances — as is often seen on American television — weight control or weight loss by people who just want to look better. Celebrities getting behind these injectables has really powered an explosion of use.
There still are ethical issues out there for practitioners. For one thing, there are some forms of semaglutide, a key ingredient in some of these injectables, that are made by compounding pharmacies. They’re not the name-brand prescription injectables made by large companies. They’re brewed up, if you will, by a specialty pharmacy trying to mimic the ingredient.
What we’ve seen in recent weeks is an explosion of overdoses. When a person uses one of these compounding pharmacies, usually in association with a spa or sometimes online sales of weight loss injectables, they’re not always certain about how to dose themselves, how much to give, and what to take. They could misread the instructions. The more that it’s up to them to determine the dose, the more there’s risk for error. Reports show as much as 1500% increases in poisoning of people who took, instead of a 10th of a milliliter, 10 mL of these compounded versions of the injectable drugs.
Everybody needs to be alert, and not only for adverse events from the prescription injectables. It is important to track that, make sure that people aren’t getting into trouble, and have contact with the FDA if you have a patient who reports some kind of adverse event they attribute to injectables.
It’s important to realize that there’s this generic, cheaper path, but it’s a more dangerous path. People need to know this if they’re going to try that route. Doctors should be aware of it. People should be ready to call the poison control center number in their area to make sure that they know what to do if they overdose on this stuff.
My own inclination is to try to discourage its use. I think it’s still too dangerous to have people self-dosing with ingredients that really are not yet FDA approved in terms of knowing that they’ve been tested in clinical trials.
The other big issue, aside from this Wild West world outside of prescribed injectables, is what to say to people who are obese or trying to manage their weight. I think people need to know all their options. It’s pretty easy to just say, “Let’s put you on one of these injectables” and prescribe it. For one thing, they may not be able to get it; there’s such huge demand that there are some shortages out there.
We don’t really know the long-term consequences of decades-long use of these drugs.
I think people should hear their options and maybe try something less invasive to begin with. If that doesn’t work, then move on to the injectables. It isn’t so clear to me — given the cost, some of the unknowns of long-term use, and some of the dangers of people sneaking around and trying to get things cheaper on the side — that going straight to injectables is our best answer.
I do think doctors should talk about weight with their patients, carefully, with the patient’s consent. Make sure there’s no stigma. Make sure we’re not doing anything to raise anxiety as we talk about this condition. After all, it is seen as a disease.
Then, maybe enter your way gradually into interventions, seeing if lifestyle change is possible. It’s cheap and easier to implement: better diet, better exercise, or calorie counting. Some people succeed. When they don’t, we should move on, but realize that we’ve got the equivalent of a black market. We need to encourage patients, if they use injectable weight loss drugs, to tell doctors so that they can be on alert about the dangers and risks of overdose.
Dr. Caplan is Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed an unpaid position with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use, and serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
There’s never been anything like the revolution in the treatment of obesity that we are now living through. Historically, there’s always been calorie counting and diets. Now, after a burst of interest in gastric bypass surgery, we have the amazing world of injectables. We all have heard about Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Wegovy.
These are being used by millions of Americans at this point, some on prescription for conditions like diabetes and some to bring about weight loss in prediabetes, or in some instances — as is often seen on American television — weight control or weight loss by people who just want to look better. Celebrities getting behind these injectables has really powered an explosion of use.
There still are ethical issues out there for practitioners. For one thing, there are some forms of semaglutide, a key ingredient in some of these injectables, that are made by compounding pharmacies. They’re not the name-brand prescription injectables made by large companies. They’re brewed up, if you will, by a specialty pharmacy trying to mimic the ingredient.
What we’ve seen in recent weeks is an explosion of overdoses. When a person uses one of these compounding pharmacies, usually in association with a spa or sometimes online sales of weight loss injectables, they’re not always certain about how to dose themselves, how much to give, and what to take. They could misread the instructions. The more that it’s up to them to determine the dose, the more there’s risk for error. Reports show as much as 1500% increases in poisoning of people who took, instead of a 10th of a milliliter, 10 mL of these compounded versions of the injectable drugs.
Everybody needs to be alert, and not only for adverse events from the prescription injectables. It is important to track that, make sure that people aren’t getting into trouble, and have contact with the FDA if you have a patient who reports some kind of adverse event they attribute to injectables.
It’s important to realize that there’s this generic, cheaper path, but it’s a more dangerous path. People need to know this if they’re going to try that route. Doctors should be aware of it. People should be ready to call the poison control center number in their area to make sure that they know what to do if they overdose on this stuff.
My own inclination is to try to discourage its use. I think it’s still too dangerous to have people self-dosing with ingredients that really are not yet FDA approved in terms of knowing that they’ve been tested in clinical trials.
The other big issue, aside from this Wild West world outside of prescribed injectables, is what to say to people who are obese or trying to manage their weight. I think people need to know all their options. It’s pretty easy to just say, “Let’s put you on one of these injectables” and prescribe it. For one thing, they may not be able to get it; there’s such huge demand that there are some shortages out there.
We don’t really know the long-term consequences of decades-long use of these drugs.
I think people should hear their options and maybe try something less invasive to begin with. If that doesn’t work, then move on to the injectables. It isn’t so clear to me — given the cost, some of the unknowns of long-term use, and some of the dangers of people sneaking around and trying to get things cheaper on the side — that going straight to injectables is our best answer.
I do think doctors should talk about weight with their patients, carefully, with the patient’s consent. Make sure there’s no stigma. Make sure we’re not doing anything to raise anxiety as we talk about this condition. After all, it is seen as a disease.
Then, maybe enter your way gradually into interventions, seeing if lifestyle change is possible. It’s cheap and easier to implement: better diet, better exercise, or calorie counting. Some people succeed. When they don’t, we should move on, but realize that we’ve got the equivalent of a black market. We need to encourage patients, if they use injectable weight loss drugs, to tell doctors so that they can be on alert about the dangers and risks of overdose.
Dr. Caplan is Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed an unpaid position with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use, and serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
There’s never been anything like the revolution in the treatment of obesity that we are now living through. Historically, there’s always been calorie counting and diets. Now, after a burst of interest in gastric bypass surgery, we have the amazing world of injectables. We all have heard about Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Wegovy.
These are being used by millions of Americans at this point, some on prescription for conditions like diabetes and some to bring about weight loss in prediabetes, or in some instances — as is often seen on American television — weight control or weight loss by people who just want to look better. Celebrities getting behind these injectables has really powered an explosion of use.
There still are ethical issues out there for practitioners. For one thing, there are some forms of semaglutide, a key ingredient in some of these injectables, that are made by compounding pharmacies. They’re not the name-brand prescription injectables made by large companies. They’re brewed up, if you will, by a specialty pharmacy trying to mimic the ingredient.
What we’ve seen in recent weeks is an explosion of overdoses. When a person uses one of these compounding pharmacies, usually in association with a spa or sometimes online sales of weight loss injectables, they’re not always certain about how to dose themselves, how much to give, and what to take. They could misread the instructions. The more that it’s up to them to determine the dose, the more there’s risk for error. Reports show as much as 1500% increases in poisoning of people who took, instead of a 10th of a milliliter, 10 mL of these compounded versions of the injectable drugs.
Everybody needs to be alert, and not only for adverse events from the prescription injectables. It is important to track that, make sure that people aren’t getting into trouble, and have contact with the FDA if you have a patient who reports some kind of adverse event they attribute to injectables.
It’s important to realize that there’s this generic, cheaper path, but it’s a more dangerous path. People need to know this if they’re going to try that route. Doctors should be aware of it. People should be ready to call the poison control center number in their area to make sure that they know what to do if they overdose on this stuff.
My own inclination is to try to discourage its use. I think it’s still too dangerous to have people self-dosing with ingredients that really are not yet FDA approved in terms of knowing that they’ve been tested in clinical trials.
The other big issue, aside from this Wild West world outside of prescribed injectables, is what to say to people who are obese or trying to manage their weight. I think people need to know all their options. It’s pretty easy to just say, “Let’s put you on one of these injectables” and prescribe it. For one thing, they may not be able to get it; there’s such huge demand that there are some shortages out there.
We don’t really know the long-term consequences of decades-long use of these drugs.
I think people should hear their options and maybe try something less invasive to begin with. If that doesn’t work, then move on to the injectables. It isn’t so clear to me — given the cost, some of the unknowns of long-term use, and some of the dangers of people sneaking around and trying to get things cheaper on the side — that going straight to injectables is our best answer.
I do think doctors should talk about weight with their patients, carefully, with the patient’s consent. Make sure there’s no stigma. Make sure we’re not doing anything to raise anxiety as we talk about this condition. After all, it is seen as a disease.
Then, maybe enter your way gradually into interventions, seeing if lifestyle change is possible. It’s cheap and easier to implement: better diet, better exercise, or calorie counting. Some people succeed. When they don’t, we should move on, but realize that we’ve got the equivalent of a black market. We need to encourage patients, if they use injectable weight loss drugs, to tell doctors so that they can be on alert about the dangers and risks of overdose.
Dr. Caplan is Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed an unpaid position with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use, and serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Offsetting Side Effects of New Antiobesity Medications
It’s 2 a.m. and my phone wakes me up with a start. My patient, Christine Z*, is vomiting uncontrollably, and Dr Google has diagnosed her with acute pancreatitis from semaglutide (Wegovy). Ten hours, several imaging studies, one blood draw, and many bags of fluids later, the verdict is in: Christine is alarmingly constipated. In fact, her entire large intestine is packed to the brim with stool. In residency, we called this diagnosis FOS, and I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out what it stands for.
In retrospect, Christine mentions that upon raising her Wegovy dose, her bowel movements had become increasingly smaller and infrequent. This begs the question:
Proper nutrition always starts with drinking copious amounts of water. In general, I recommend a minimum of 64 ounces of water daily in patients taking incretins such as semaglutide (Wegovy for weight loss, Ozempic and Rybelsus for type 2 diabetes) or tirzepatide (Zepbound for weight loss, Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes). While these medications don’t directly dehydrate patients, they can increase the risk for dehydration due to severe nausea. Drinking copious amounts of water can prevent dehydration, preserve kidney function, and minimize fatigue and dizziness. In addition, fluids help soften bowel movements, making them easier to pass.
Occasionally incretins make it so easy for patients to drop pounds that their eating patterns become sloppier — more sweets and simple carbohydrates. I recommend a realistic and low glycemic index meal plan. While no foods are strictly contraindicated, processed, high-sugar, and fatty foods are likely to worsen side effects like nausea and gastrointestinal distress. Similarly, alcohol not only worsens nausea, but it’s also likely to exacerbate reflux by relaxing the sphincter that separates the stomach from the esophagus.
The next most important dietary advice is consuming sufficient fiber. In the majority of patients, increasing fiber intake relieves constipation. There are two types of fiber: soluble and insoluble. In practical terms, most fiber-rich foods contain a mixture of these two types. The general recommendation is 38 g/d for men and 25 g/d for women. The caveat to this advice is that a minority of patients, such as those with irritable bowel syndrome, may develop worsening constipation with increasing fiber.
To minimize side effects, some patients find it useful to eat five small meals throughout the day rather than three larger meals. In addition, I recommend eating slowly and stopping before the point of satiety. Finally, because weight loss of any kind is inevitably associated with muscle loss, I stress the importance of adequate protein. In general, I advise 25-30 g of protein per meal.
Christine eventually restarted her Wegovy after recovering from her grueling night in the emergency room. As this was her second go-around on Wegovy, she dug out my “guide to preventing side effects of incretins” and followed it to a T. So far, she’s feeling great.
*The patient’s name has been changed.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s 2 a.m. and my phone wakes me up with a start. My patient, Christine Z*, is vomiting uncontrollably, and Dr Google has diagnosed her with acute pancreatitis from semaglutide (Wegovy). Ten hours, several imaging studies, one blood draw, and many bags of fluids later, the verdict is in: Christine is alarmingly constipated. In fact, her entire large intestine is packed to the brim with stool. In residency, we called this diagnosis FOS, and I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out what it stands for.
In retrospect, Christine mentions that upon raising her Wegovy dose, her bowel movements had become increasingly smaller and infrequent. This begs the question:
Proper nutrition always starts with drinking copious amounts of water. In general, I recommend a minimum of 64 ounces of water daily in patients taking incretins such as semaglutide (Wegovy for weight loss, Ozempic and Rybelsus for type 2 diabetes) or tirzepatide (Zepbound for weight loss, Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes). While these medications don’t directly dehydrate patients, they can increase the risk for dehydration due to severe nausea. Drinking copious amounts of water can prevent dehydration, preserve kidney function, and minimize fatigue and dizziness. In addition, fluids help soften bowel movements, making them easier to pass.
Occasionally incretins make it so easy for patients to drop pounds that their eating patterns become sloppier — more sweets and simple carbohydrates. I recommend a realistic and low glycemic index meal plan. While no foods are strictly contraindicated, processed, high-sugar, and fatty foods are likely to worsen side effects like nausea and gastrointestinal distress. Similarly, alcohol not only worsens nausea, but it’s also likely to exacerbate reflux by relaxing the sphincter that separates the stomach from the esophagus.
The next most important dietary advice is consuming sufficient fiber. In the majority of patients, increasing fiber intake relieves constipation. There are two types of fiber: soluble and insoluble. In practical terms, most fiber-rich foods contain a mixture of these two types. The general recommendation is 38 g/d for men and 25 g/d for women. The caveat to this advice is that a minority of patients, such as those with irritable bowel syndrome, may develop worsening constipation with increasing fiber.
To minimize side effects, some patients find it useful to eat five small meals throughout the day rather than three larger meals. In addition, I recommend eating slowly and stopping before the point of satiety. Finally, because weight loss of any kind is inevitably associated with muscle loss, I stress the importance of adequate protein. In general, I advise 25-30 g of protein per meal.
Christine eventually restarted her Wegovy after recovering from her grueling night in the emergency room. As this was her second go-around on Wegovy, she dug out my “guide to preventing side effects of incretins” and followed it to a T. So far, she’s feeling great.
*The patient’s name has been changed.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s 2 a.m. and my phone wakes me up with a start. My patient, Christine Z*, is vomiting uncontrollably, and Dr Google has diagnosed her with acute pancreatitis from semaglutide (Wegovy). Ten hours, several imaging studies, one blood draw, and many bags of fluids later, the verdict is in: Christine is alarmingly constipated. In fact, her entire large intestine is packed to the brim with stool. In residency, we called this diagnosis FOS, and I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out what it stands for.
In retrospect, Christine mentions that upon raising her Wegovy dose, her bowel movements had become increasingly smaller and infrequent. This begs the question:
Proper nutrition always starts with drinking copious amounts of water. In general, I recommend a minimum of 64 ounces of water daily in patients taking incretins such as semaglutide (Wegovy for weight loss, Ozempic and Rybelsus for type 2 diabetes) or tirzepatide (Zepbound for weight loss, Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes). While these medications don’t directly dehydrate patients, they can increase the risk for dehydration due to severe nausea. Drinking copious amounts of water can prevent dehydration, preserve kidney function, and minimize fatigue and dizziness. In addition, fluids help soften bowel movements, making them easier to pass.
Occasionally incretins make it so easy for patients to drop pounds that their eating patterns become sloppier — more sweets and simple carbohydrates. I recommend a realistic and low glycemic index meal plan. While no foods are strictly contraindicated, processed, high-sugar, and fatty foods are likely to worsen side effects like nausea and gastrointestinal distress. Similarly, alcohol not only worsens nausea, but it’s also likely to exacerbate reflux by relaxing the sphincter that separates the stomach from the esophagus.
The next most important dietary advice is consuming sufficient fiber. In the majority of patients, increasing fiber intake relieves constipation. There are two types of fiber: soluble and insoluble. In practical terms, most fiber-rich foods contain a mixture of these two types. The general recommendation is 38 g/d for men and 25 g/d for women. The caveat to this advice is that a minority of patients, such as those with irritable bowel syndrome, may develop worsening constipation with increasing fiber.
To minimize side effects, some patients find it useful to eat five small meals throughout the day rather than three larger meals. In addition, I recommend eating slowly and stopping before the point of satiety. Finally, because weight loss of any kind is inevitably associated with muscle loss, I stress the importance of adequate protein. In general, I advise 25-30 g of protein per meal.
Christine eventually restarted her Wegovy after recovering from her grueling night in the emergency room. As this was her second go-around on Wegovy, she dug out my “guide to preventing side effects of incretins” and followed it to a T. So far, she’s feeling great.
*The patient’s name has been changed.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
US Board Discloses Cheating, Grads Say Problem Is Rampant
The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program is invalidating scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal.
In a January 31 announcement, the USMLE program said that officials are in the process of notifying examinees with results in question and that the examinees will be required to take validation exams. The program did not offer further details about its investigation or how the questionable performance was identified.
“The USMLE program regularly monitors and analyzes examinees’ test performances for unusual score patterns or variations, and other information that could raise questions about the validity of an examinee’s results,” the program said in a statement. “Highly irregular patterns can be indicative of prior unauthorized access to secure exam content.”
Some medical graduates say the action against students cheating on the USMLE is long overdue.
, particularly by groups within the international medical graduate (IMG) community, according to multiple IMGs who shared their concerns with this news organization. Sellers operate under pseudonyms across social media platforms and charge anywhere from $300 to $2000 for questions, Medscape research shows.
Facebook posts often advertise questions for sale, said Saqib Gul, MD, an IMG from Pakistan who has voiced concerns about the practice on social media.
“People make up fake profiles and tell others to [direct message] them for recalls,” he told this news organization. “There was a dedicated Facebook page that was doing this. In other cases, a couple of friends that took the exam remember a certain number of questions and write them down after the test.”
Ahmad Ozair, MD, an IMG from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, said that he has come across many groups online sharing or selling USMLE recalls. He first became suspicious when he saw several students, all from a few medical schools in Nepal, posting on social media about scoring in the 270 and 280-plus range.
“The statistical probability that you would have three or more candidates in the same year, scoring in the 99th percentile worldwide, belonging to a small geographical area is extremely low.”
Dr. Ozair, who now is studying public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the issue is important for “all stakeholders” who care about patient safety: “Would you want a doctor who has cheated on the medical licensing exam to take care of you?”
In an interview, USMLE program spokesman Joe Knickrehm said that the program relies on multiple processes to detect and respond to claims that exam integrity is being compromised. The process includes monitoring performance data, an anonymous tip line for reporting suspicious behavior, and a thorough investigative process.
“The USMLE program regularly monitors social media channels for comments relating to exam security and irregular behavior and will initiate an investigation if warranted,” Mr. Knickrehm told this news organization. “ The covert nature of this activity does not lend itself to a definitive statement regarding whether the problem has increased or decreased in recent years.”
Mr. Knickrehm said that the program’s STOPit app allows people to report suspicious behavior electronically to the USMLE program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has received more than 80 tips per year through the app, according to Mr. Knickrehm. Security violations are investigated by USMLE staff and reviewed by the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review (CIR). Anyone found to have engaged in irregular behavior by the CIR for activities undermining exam integrity are typically barred from access to the USMLE for multiple years.
How Easy Is It to Buy Recalls?
Two years ago, Dr B was approached by a former study partner who had just completed Step 2 of the USMLE. She asked whether Dr B wanted to buy recalled questions to help her pass.
“She paid this guy almost $2000 for recalls and told me if I pay this money, he’ll give me the recalls,” said Dr B, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being associated with students cheating on the USMLE. “I told her I was not interested, and she said the guy would lower the price. I broke contact with her.”
Dr B, an IMG from Pakistan, was appalled. But she said that the episode was not the first time she has come across groups selling USMLE recalls or heard peers brag about having access to exam content.
“I am baffled at how many [groups] post on social media and brazenly advertise their ‘services,’” she told this news organization. “No one arrests them, their customers go on to score abnormally high on the boards, making it unachievable for people who take the honest route, plus giving IMGs a bad rep.”
Groups offering recalls are easily findable on sites such as Telegram and Signal. Telegram is a cloud-based messaging app that focuses on security, and Signal is an encrypted messaging service.
The website recallmastery.com purports to offer a range of USMLE recall packages, from a free, unsorted version to Step 1 and Step 2 packages that include “fresh updates,” and sections with “mostly repeated topics. Prices range from the free version to the $799 VIP package.
Another site called MedPox.com boasts 2024 Step 2 recalls, advertising “ actual exam questions to get HIGH scores.” The website’s owner states that the recalls were collected “by my friends,” and to message the them to be added to the “recalls group.”
A reporter was able to easily download a free version of alleged USMLE questions and answers from recallmastery.com. The document was a combination of typed and handwritten notes about medical questions, with red circles around recalled answers.
J. Bryan Carmody, MD, who blogs about medical education, reviewed a copy of the document. He said that the content appeared “credible” and was in fact recalled USMLE questions. However, the extent of which the question stem was recalled was incomplete at best, and there was little production value to the document, said Dr. Carmody, a nephrologist and associate professor of pediatrics at the Eastern Virgina Medical School in Norfolk.
The person selling the recall packages states on the website that the free version is not organized or sorted, but it allows viewers to “see how this works before paying for premium recalls.”
Mr. Knickrehm said that the program could not comment on the document, but that “whenever the USMLE program receives or locates information about a potential security violation, we investigate and take necessary action.”
When asked about the specific websites noted above, Knickrehm said that the program routinely monitors a wide array of websites, message boards, and chat rooms for USMLE-related materials. Though many sites advertise having USMLE recalls for sale, it’s more likely they are selling non-USMLE content, he said.
Using past content to cheat on medical exams is an old problem. In 2010, for example, the American Board of Internal Medicine suspended 139 physicians after they were caught cheating on the board exams. The scandal involved a vast cheating ring that included physicians memorizing questions and reproducing them after the tests. The board later sued a gastroenterologist for her part in the scandal.
In 2012, a CNN investigation exposed doctors who were memorizing test questions and creating sophisticated recall banks to cheat on radiology boards. The Association of American Medical Colleges sued a medical student in 2017 for attempting to secretly record content on the MCAT using spyglasses.
In recent years, Dr. Carmody said that he has received multiple messages and screenshots from concerned students and residents who were offered or encountered recalls.
“One thing that’s unclear is how legitimate the claims are,” he said. “Many of these recalls may be faulty or outdated. It could be someone who took the exam yesterday and has a photographic memory or it could be some sparsely recalled or mis-recalled information. Unless you’re willing to pay these people, you can’t inspect the quality, or even if you did, you wouldn’t know if the information was current or not.”
‘As an IMG, There Is So Much at Stake’
Whether recall sellers — and those buying them — are more frequently IMGs has fostered heated debate on social media.
On a Reddit thread devoted to IMG issues, posters expressed frustration about being bombarded with recall advertisements and unwanted messages about buying USMLE questions while trying to find study materials. One poster called the practices a “huge slap to all those IMGs who are struggling day and night, just to get a good score.”
In an X thread about the same subject, however, some self-described IMGs took offense to claims that IMGs might score higher because they have access to recalls. The allegations are “incendiary” and “malign hardworking IMGs,” posters wrote.
When Dr. Gul spoke out online about the “biopsy” culture, he received multiple private messages from fellow IMGs telling him to remove his comments, he said.
“I received a lot of backlash on social media,” he told this news organization. “Some IMGs asked me to take down my posts because they thought I was making IMGs look bad, and it might prompt authorities to take action or shut down international examination centers for IMGs.”
Most of the IMGs who spoke to this news organization were afraid to be publicly identified. Several IMG advocates and IMG associations contacted for the story did not respond. One medical education expert said that his institution advised him to “steer clear” of commenting because the issue was “controversial.”
“As an IMG, there is so much at stake,” Dr B said. “Any association with shady operations like these is an absolute suicide. I’m personally afraid of any repercussions of the sort.”
USMLE officials declined to comment on whether the buying or selling of recalls appears to be more prevalent among the IMG community, saying it is “difficult to generalize this behavior as ‘prevalent’ simply due to the clandestine nature of this activity.”
Cheat-Proofing the USMLE
The USMLE program has taken several steps intended to prevent cheating, but more needs to be done, medical education advocates say.
For example, Dr. Carmody called the recent change in the attempt limit for taking USMLE exams from six to four times a good move.
“The reality is, if you’re taking a USMLE exam five-plus times, you’re far more likely to be memorizing questions and selling them for shady test prep operations than you are to be legitimately pursuing U.S. residency training or licensure,” he wrote on X.
The 2022 move to make USMLE Step 1 pass or fail is another positive change, said Dr. Gul, who added that US programs should also put less weight on test scores and focus more on clinical experience.
“Many programs in the US prioritize scores rather than clinical experiences in home countries,” he said. “If program directors would remove these criteria, probably the cheating practices would stop. Clinical practice matters. When a doctor gets matched, they have to be good at seeing and treating patients, not just good at sitting in front of a screen and taking an exam.”
Turning over questions more rapidly would help curb the practices, Dr. Carmody said. Another strategy is using math techniques to identify unusual deviations that suggest cheating, he said.
A blueprint for the strategy was created after a cheating scandal involving Canada’s Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) in 2004. After learning which questions were circulated, MCCQE administrators evaluated exams by comparing answers of compromised questions with the answers of noncompromised questions.
“For a person who was not cheating, the error of performance should be pretty similar on those two groups of questions,” Dr. Carmody said. “But if you were given the questions in advance, you might have very poor performance on questions that had not been compromised, and very high performance on those that had been compromised. That disparity is very unlikely to occur just by chance alone.”
Based on his research, Dr. Ozair is working on an academic review paper about cheating on the USMLE and on the Medical Council of Canada Qualification Examination. He said that he hopes the paper will raise more awareness about the problem and drive more action.
He and others interviewed for this story shared that the websites they’ve reported to the USMLE program are still active and offering recalls to buyers.
“Even if they are not actually offering something tangible or true, appearance matters,” Dr. Ozair said. “I think it’s worth the USMLE sending cease and desist letters and getting these websites taken down. This would restore faith in the process and underscore that this issue is being taken seriously.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program is invalidating scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal.
In a January 31 announcement, the USMLE program said that officials are in the process of notifying examinees with results in question and that the examinees will be required to take validation exams. The program did not offer further details about its investigation or how the questionable performance was identified.
“The USMLE program regularly monitors and analyzes examinees’ test performances for unusual score patterns or variations, and other information that could raise questions about the validity of an examinee’s results,” the program said in a statement. “Highly irregular patterns can be indicative of prior unauthorized access to secure exam content.”
Some medical graduates say the action against students cheating on the USMLE is long overdue.
, particularly by groups within the international medical graduate (IMG) community, according to multiple IMGs who shared their concerns with this news organization. Sellers operate under pseudonyms across social media platforms and charge anywhere from $300 to $2000 for questions, Medscape research shows.
Facebook posts often advertise questions for sale, said Saqib Gul, MD, an IMG from Pakistan who has voiced concerns about the practice on social media.
“People make up fake profiles and tell others to [direct message] them for recalls,” he told this news organization. “There was a dedicated Facebook page that was doing this. In other cases, a couple of friends that took the exam remember a certain number of questions and write them down after the test.”
Ahmad Ozair, MD, an IMG from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, said that he has come across many groups online sharing or selling USMLE recalls. He first became suspicious when he saw several students, all from a few medical schools in Nepal, posting on social media about scoring in the 270 and 280-plus range.
“The statistical probability that you would have three or more candidates in the same year, scoring in the 99th percentile worldwide, belonging to a small geographical area is extremely low.”
Dr. Ozair, who now is studying public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the issue is important for “all stakeholders” who care about patient safety: “Would you want a doctor who has cheated on the medical licensing exam to take care of you?”
In an interview, USMLE program spokesman Joe Knickrehm said that the program relies on multiple processes to detect and respond to claims that exam integrity is being compromised. The process includes monitoring performance data, an anonymous tip line for reporting suspicious behavior, and a thorough investigative process.
“The USMLE program regularly monitors social media channels for comments relating to exam security and irregular behavior and will initiate an investigation if warranted,” Mr. Knickrehm told this news organization. “ The covert nature of this activity does not lend itself to a definitive statement regarding whether the problem has increased or decreased in recent years.”
Mr. Knickrehm said that the program’s STOPit app allows people to report suspicious behavior electronically to the USMLE program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has received more than 80 tips per year through the app, according to Mr. Knickrehm. Security violations are investigated by USMLE staff and reviewed by the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review (CIR). Anyone found to have engaged in irregular behavior by the CIR for activities undermining exam integrity are typically barred from access to the USMLE for multiple years.
How Easy Is It to Buy Recalls?
Two years ago, Dr B was approached by a former study partner who had just completed Step 2 of the USMLE. She asked whether Dr B wanted to buy recalled questions to help her pass.
“She paid this guy almost $2000 for recalls and told me if I pay this money, he’ll give me the recalls,” said Dr B, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being associated with students cheating on the USMLE. “I told her I was not interested, and she said the guy would lower the price. I broke contact with her.”
Dr B, an IMG from Pakistan, was appalled. But she said that the episode was not the first time she has come across groups selling USMLE recalls or heard peers brag about having access to exam content.
“I am baffled at how many [groups] post on social media and brazenly advertise their ‘services,’” she told this news organization. “No one arrests them, their customers go on to score abnormally high on the boards, making it unachievable for people who take the honest route, plus giving IMGs a bad rep.”
Groups offering recalls are easily findable on sites such as Telegram and Signal. Telegram is a cloud-based messaging app that focuses on security, and Signal is an encrypted messaging service.
The website recallmastery.com purports to offer a range of USMLE recall packages, from a free, unsorted version to Step 1 and Step 2 packages that include “fresh updates,” and sections with “mostly repeated topics. Prices range from the free version to the $799 VIP package.
Another site called MedPox.com boasts 2024 Step 2 recalls, advertising “ actual exam questions to get HIGH scores.” The website’s owner states that the recalls were collected “by my friends,” and to message the them to be added to the “recalls group.”
A reporter was able to easily download a free version of alleged USMLE questions and answers from recallmastery.com. The document was a combination of typed and handwritten notes about medical questions, with red circles around recalled answers.
J. Bryan Carmody, MD, who blogs about medical education, reviewed a copy of the document. He said that the content appeared “credible” and was in fact recalled USMLE questions. However, the extent of which the question stem was recalled was incomplete at best, and there was little production value to the document, said Dr. Carmody, a nephrologist and associate professor of pediatrics at the Eastern Virgina Medical School in Norfolk.
The person selling the recall packages states on the website that the free version is not organized or sorted, but it allows viewers to “see how this works before paying for premium recalls.”
Mr. Knickrehm said that the program could not comment on the document, but that “whenever the USMLE program receives or locates information about a potential security violation, we investigate and take necessary action.”
When asked about the specific websites noted above, Knickrehm said that the program routinely monitors a wide array of websites, message boards, and chat rooms for USMLE-related materials. Though many sites advertise having USMLE recalls for sale, it’s more likely they are selling non-USMLE content, he said.
Using past content to cheat on medical exams is an old problem. In 2010, for example, the American Board of Internal Medicine suspended 139 physicians after they were caught cheating on the board exams. The scandal involved a vast cheating ring that included physicians memorizing questions and reproducing them after the tests. The board later sued a gastroenterologist for her part in the scandal.
In 2012, a CNN investigation exposed doctors who were memorizing test questions and creating sophisticated recall banks to cheat on radiology boards. The Association of American Medical Colleges sued a medical student in 2017 for attempting to secretly record content on the MCAT using spyglasses.
In recent years, Dr. Carmody said that he has received multiple messages and screenshots from concerned students and residents who were offered or encountered recalls.
“One thing that’s unclear is how legitimate the claims are,” he said. “Many of these recalls may be faulty or outdated. It could be someone who took the exam yesterday and has a photographic memory or it could be some sparsely recalled or mis-recalled information. Unless you’re willing to pay these people, you can’t inspect the quality, or even if you did, you wouldn’t know if the information was current or not.”
‘As an IMG, There Is So Much at Stake’
Whether recall sellers — and those buying them — are more frequently IMGs has fostered heated debate on social media.
On a Reddit thread devoted to IMG issues, posters expressed frustration about being bombarded with recall advertisements and unwanted messages about buying USMLE questions while trying to find study materials. One poster called the practices a “huge slap to all those IMGs who are struggling day and night, just to get a good score.”
In an X thread about the same subject, however, some self-described IMGs took offense to claims that IMGs might score higher because they have access to recalls. The allegations are “incendiary” and “malign hardworking IMGs,” posters wrote.
When Dr. Gul spoke out online about the “biopsy” culture, he received multiple private messages from fellow IMGs telling him to remove his comments, he said.
“I received a lot of backlash on social media,” he told this news organization. “Some IMGs asked me to take down my posts because they thought I was making IMGs look bad, and it might prompt authorities to take action or shut down international examination centers for IMGs.”
Most of the IMGs who spoke to this news organization were afraid to be publicly identified. Several IMG advocates and IMG associations contacted for the story did not respond. One medical education expert said that his institution advised him to “steer clear” of commenting because the issue was “controversial.”
“As an IMG, there is so much at stake,” Dr B said. “Any association with shady operations like these is an absolute suicide. I’m personally afraid of any repercussions of the sort.”
USMLE officials declined to comment on whether the buying or selling of recalls appears to be more prevalent among the IMG community, saying it is “difficult to generalize this behavior as ‘prevalent’ simply due to the clandestine nature of this activity.”
Cheat-Proofing the USMLE
The USMLE program has taken several steps intended to prevent cheating, but more needs to be done, medical education advocates say.
For example, Dr. Carmody called the recent change in the attempt limit for taking USMLE exams from six to four times a good move.
“The reality is, if you’re taking a USMLE exam five-plus times, you’re far more likely to be memorizing questions and selling them for shady test prep operations than you are to be legitimately pursuing U.S. residency training or licensure,” he wrote on X.
The 2022 move to make USMLE Step 1 pass or fail is another positive change, said Dr. Gul, who added that US programs should also put less weight on test scores and focus more on clinical experience.
“Many programs in the US prioritize scores rather than clinical experiences in home countries,” he said. “If program directors would remove these criteria, probably the cheating practices would stop. Clinical practice matters. When a doctor gets matched, they have to be good at seeing and treating patients, not just good at sitting in front of a screen and taking an exam.”
Turning over questions more rapidly would help curb the practices, Dr. Carmody said. Another strategy is using math techniques to identify unusual deviations that suggest cheating, he said.
A blueprint for the strategy was created after a cheating scandal involving Canada’s Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) in 2004. After learning which questions were circulated, MCCQE administrators evaluated exams by comparing answers of compromised questions with the answers of noncompromised questions.
“For a person who was not cheating, the error of performance should be pretty similar on those two groups of questions,” Dr. Carmody said. “But if you were given the questions in advance, you might have very poor performance on questions that had not been compromised, and very high performance on those that had been compromised. That disparity is very unlikely to occur just by chance alone.”
Based on his research, Dr. Ozair is working on an academic review paper about cheating on the USMLE and on the Medical Council of Canada Qualification Examination. He said that he hopes the paper will raise more awareness about the problem and drive more action.
He and others interviewed for this story shared that the websites they’ve reported to the USMLE program are still active and offering recalls to buyers.
“Even if they are not actually offering something tangible or true, appearance matters,” Dr. Ozair said. “I think it’s worth the USMLE sending cease and desist letters and getting these websites taken down. This would restore faith in the process and underscore that this issue is being taken seriously.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program is invalidating scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal.
In a January 31 announcement, the USMLE program said that officials are in the process of notifying examinees with results in question and that the examinees will be required to take validation exams. The program did not offer further details about its investigation or how the questionable performance was identified.
“The USMLE program regularly monitors and analyzes examinees’ test performances for unusual score patterns or variations, and other information that could raise questions about the validity of an examinee’s results,” the program said in a statement. “Highly irregular patterns can be indicative of prior unauthorized access to secure exam content.”
Some medical graduates say the action against students cheating on the USMLE is long overdue.
, particularly by groups within the international medical graduate (IMG) community, according to multiple IMGs who shared their concerns with this news organization. Sellers operate under pseudonyms across social media platforms and charge anywhere from $300 to $2000 for questions, Medscape research shows.
Facebook posts often advertise questions for sale, said Saqib Gul, MD, an IMG from Pakistan who has voiced concerns about the practice on social media.
“People make up fake profiles and tell others to [direct message] them for recalls,” he told this news organization. “There was a dedicated Facebook page that was doing this. In other cases, a couple of friends that took the exam remember a certain number of questions and write them down after the test.”
Ahmad Ozair, MD, an IMG from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, said that he has come across many groups online sharing or selling USMLE recalls. He first became suspicious when he saw several students, all from a few medical schools in Nepal, posting on social media about scoring in the 270 and 280-plus range.
“The statistical probability that you would have three or more candidates in the same year, scoring in the 99th percentile worldwide, belonging to a small geographical area is extremely low.”
Dr. Ozair, who now is studying public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the issue is important for “all stakeholders” who care about patient safety: “Would you want a doctor who has cheated on the medical licensing exam to take care of you?”
In an interview, USMLE program spokesman Joe Knickrehm said that the program relies on multiple processes to detect and respond to claims that exam integrity is being compromised. The process includes monitoring performance data, an anonymous tip line for reporting suspicious behavior, and a thorough investigative process.
“The USMLE program regularly monitors social media channels for comments relating to exam security and irregular behavior and will initiate an investigation if warranted,” Mr. Knickrehm told this news organization. “ The covert nature of this activity does not lend itself to a definitive statement regarding whether the problem has increased or decreased in recent years.”
Mr. Knickrehm said that the program’s STOPit app allows people to report suspicious behavior electronically to the USMLE program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has received more than 80 tips per year through the app, according to Mr. Knickrehm. Security violations are investigated by USMLE staff and reviewed by the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review (CIR). Anyone found to have engaged in irregular behavior by the CIR for activities undermining exam integrity are typically barred from access to the USMLE for multiple years.
How Easy Is It to Buy Recalls?
Two years ago, Dr B was approached by a former study partner who had just completed Step 2 of the USMLE. She asked whether Dr B wanted to buy recalled questions to help her pass.
“She paid this guy almost $2000 for recalls and told me if I pay this money, he’ll give me the recalls,” said Dr B, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being associated with students cheating on the USMLE. “I told her I was not interested, and she said the guy would lower the price. I broke contact with her.”
Dr B, an IMG from Pakistan, was appalled. But she said that the episode was not the first time she has come across groups selling USMLE recalls or heard peers brag about having access to exam content.
“I am baffled at how many [groups] post on social media and brazenly advertise their ‘services,’” she told this news organization. “No one arrests them, their customers go on to score abnormally high on the boards, making it unachievable for people who take the honest route, plus giving IMGs a bad rep.”
Groups offering recalls are easily findable on sites such as Telegram and Signal. Telegram is a cloud-based messaging app that focuses on security, and Signal is an encrypted messaging service.
The website recallmastery.com purports to offer a range of USMLE recall packages, from a free, unsorted version to Step 1 and Step 2 packages that include “fresh updates,” and sections with “mostly repeated topics. Prices range from the free version to the $799 VIP package.
Another site called MedPox.com boasts 2024 Step 2 recalls, advertising “ actual exam questions to get HIGH scores.” The website’s owner states that the recalls were collected “by my friends,” and to message the them to be added to the “recalls group.”
A reporter was able to easily download a free version of alleged USMLE questions and answers from recallmastery.com. The document was a combination of typed and handwritten notes about medical questions, with red circles around recalled answers.
J. Bryan Carmody, MD, who blogs about medical education, reviewed a copy of the document. He said that the content appeared “credible” and was in fact recalled USMLE questions. However, the extent of which the question stem was recalled was incomplete at best, and there was little production value to the document, said Dr. Carmody, a nephrologist and associate professor of pediatrics at the Eastern Virgina Medical School in Norfolk.
The person selling the recall packages states on the website that the free version is not organized or sorted, but it allows viewers to “see how this works before paying for premium recalls.”
Mr. Knickrehm said that the program could not comment on the document, but that “whenever the USMLE program receives or locates information about a potential security violation, we investigate and take necessary action.”
When asked about the specific websites noted above, Knickrehm said that the program routinely monitors a wide array of websites, message boards, and chat rooms for USMLE-related materials. Though many sites advertise having USMLE recalls for sale, it’s more likely they are selling non-USMLE content, he said.
Using past content to cheat on medical exams is an old problem. In 2010, for example, the American Board of Internal Medicine suspended 139 physicians after they were caught cheating on the board exams. The scandal involved a vast cheating ring that included physicians memorizing questions and reproducing them after the tests. The board later sued a gastroenterologist for her part in the scandal.
In 2012, a CNN investigation exposed doctors who were memorizing test questions and creating sophisticated recall banks to cheat on radiology boards. The Association of American Medical Colleges sued a medical student in 2017 for attempting to secretly record content on the MCAT using spyglasses.
In recent years, Dr. Carmody said that he has received multiple messages and screenshots from concerned students and residents who were offered or encountered recalls.
“One thing that’s unclear is how legitimate the claims are,” he said. “Many of these recalls may be faulty or outdated. It could be someone who took the exam yesterday and has a photographic memory or it could be some sparsely recalled or mis-recalled information. Unless you’re willing to pay these people, you can’t inspect the quality, or even if you did, you wouldn’t know if the information was current or not.”
‘As an IMG, There Is So Much at Stake’
Whether recall sellers — and those buying them — are more frequently IMGs has fostered heated debate on social media.
On a Reddit thread devoted to IMG issues, posters expressed frustration about being bombarded with recall advertisements and unwanted messages about buying USMLE questions while trying to find study materials. One poster called the practices a “huge slap to all those IMGs who are struggling day and night, just to get a good score.”
In an X thread about the same subject, however, some self-described IMGs took offense to claims that IMGs might score higher because they have access to recalls. The allegations are “incendiary” and “malign hardworking IMGs,” posters wrote.
When Dr. Gul spoke out online about the “biopsy” culture, he received multiple private messages from fellow IMGs telling him to remove his comments, he said.
“I received a lot of backlash on social media,” he told this news organization. “Some IMGs asked me to take down my posts because they thought I was making IMGs look bad, and it might prompt authorities to take action or shut down international examination centers for IMGs.”
Most of the IMGs who spoke to this news organization were afraid to be publicly identified. Several IMG advocates and IMG associations contacted for the story did not respond. One medical education expert said that his institution advised him to “steer clear” of commenting because the issue was “controversial.”
“As an IMG, there is so much at stake,” Dr B said. “Any association with shady operations like these is an absolute suicide. I’m personally afraid of any repercussions of the sort.”
USMLE officials declined to comment on whether the buying or selling of recalls appears to be more prevalent among the IMG community, saying it is “difficult to generalize this behavior as ‘prevalent’ simply due to the clandestine nature of this activity.”
Cheat-Proofing the USMLE
The USMLE program has taken several steps intended to prevent cheating, but more needs to be done, medical education advocates say.
For example, Dr. Carmody called the recent change in the attempt limit for taking USMLE exams from six to four times a good move.
“The reality is, if you’re taking a USMLE exam five-plus times, you’re far more likely to be memorizing questions and selling them for shady test prep operations than you are to be legitimately pursuing U.S. residency training or licensure,” he wrote on X.
The 2022 move to make USMLE Step 1 pass or fail is another positive change, said Dr. Gul, who added that US programs should also put less weight on test scores and focus more on clinical experience.
“Many programs in the US prioritize scores rather than clinical experiences in home countries,” he said. “If program directors would remove these criteria, probably the cheating practices would stop. Clinical practice matters. When a doctor gets matched, they have to be good at seeing and treating patients, not just good at sitting in front of a screen and taking an exam.”
Turning over questions more rapidly would help curb the practices, Dr. Carmody said. Another strategy is using math techniques to identify unusual deviations that suggest cheating, he said.
A blueprint for the strategy was created after a cheating scandal involving Canada’s Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) in 2004. After learning which questions were circulated, MCCQE administrators evaluated exams by comparing answers of compromised questions with the answers of noncompromised questions.
“For a person who was not cheating, the error of performance should be pretty similar on those two groups of questions,” Dr. Carmody said. “But if you were given the questions in advance, you might have very poor performance on questions that had not been compromised, and very high performance on those that had been compromised. That disparity is very unlikely to occur just by chance alone.”
Based on his research, Dr. Ozair is working on an academic review paper about cheating on the USMLE and on the Medical Council of Canada Qualification Examination. He said that he hopes the paper will raise more awareness about the problem and drive more action.
He and others interviewed for this story shared that the websites they’ve reported to the USMLE program are still active and offering recalls to buyers.
“Even if they are not actually offering something tangible or true, appearance matters,” Dr. Ozair said. “I think it’s worth the USMLE sending cease and desist letters and getting these websites taken down. This would restore faith in the process and underscore that this issue is being taken seriously.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Federal Bill Seeks AI Tools to Stop Medicare Fraud
A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.
Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.
The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.
The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).
CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.
Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.
“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.
Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.
Concerns Raised
So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.
Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.
Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.
Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.
But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.
The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.
Detecting Medicare Fraud
The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.
A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.
In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.
About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.
Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.
The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.
The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).
CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.
Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.
“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.
Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.
Concerns Raised
So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.
Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.
Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.
Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.
But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.
The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.
Detecting Medicare Fraud
The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.
A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.
In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.
About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.
Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.
The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.
The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).
CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.
Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.
“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.
Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.
Concerns Raised
So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.
Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.
Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.
Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.
But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.
The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.
Detecting Medicare Fraud
The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.
A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.
In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.
About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Most Americans Believe Bariatric Surgery Is Shortcut, Should Be ‘Last Resort’: Survey
Most Americans’ views about obesity and bariatric surgery are colored by stigmas, according to a new survey from the healthcare system at Orlando Health.
For example, most Americans believe that weight loss surgery should be pursued only as a last resort and that bariatric surgery is a shortcut to shedding pounds, the survey found.
Common stigmas could be deterring people who qualify for bariatric surgery from pursuing it, according to Orlando Health, located in Florida.
“Bariatric surgery is by no means an easy way out. If you have the courage to ask for help and commit to doing the hard work of changing your diet and improving your life, you’re a champion in my book,” said Andre Teixeira, MD, medical director and bariatric surgeon at Orlando Health Weight Loss and Bariatric Surgery Institute, Orlando, Florida.
“Surgery is simply a tool to jumpstart that change,” he said. “After surgery, it is up to the patient to learn how to eat well, implement exercise into their routine, and shift their mindset to maintain their health for the rest of their lives.”
The survey results were published in January by Orlando Health.
Surveying Americans
The national survey, conducted for Orlando Health by the market research firm Ipsos in early November 2023, asked 1017 US adults whether they agreed or disagreed with several statements about weight loss and bariatric surgery. The statements and responses are as follows:
- “Weight loss surgery is a shortcut to shedding pounds” — 60% strongly or somewhat agreed, 38% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to answer.
- “Weight loss surgery is cosmetic and mainly impacts appearance” — 37% strongly or somewhat agreed, 61% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to respond.
- “Exercise and diet should be enough for weight loss” — 61% strongly or somewhat agreed, 37% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to respond.
- “Weight loss surgery should only be pursued as a last resort” — 79% strongly or somewhat agreed, 19% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to answer.
- “Surgery should be more socially accepted as a way to lose weight” — 46% strongly or somewhat agreed, 52% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to respond.
Men’s responses indicated that they are more likely to have negative views toward weight loss surgery than women. For example, 66% of men vs 54% of women respondents see weight loss surgery as a shortcut to losing weight. Conversely, 42% of men vs 50% of women said that surgery should be a more socially accepted weight loss method.
Opinions that might interfere with the willingness to have weight loss surgery were apparent among people with obesity. The survey found that 65% of respondents with obesity and 59% with extreme obesity view surgery as a shortcut. Eighty-two percent of respondents with obesity and 68% with extreme obesity see surgery as a last resort.
At the end of 2022, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders updated their guidelines for metabolic and bariatric surgery for the first time since 1991, with the aim of expanding access to surgery, Orlando Health noted. However, only 1% of those who are clinically eligible end up undergoing weight loss surgery, even with advancements in laparoscopic and robotic techniques that have made it safer and less invasive, the health system added.
“Because of the stigma around obesity and bariatric surgery, so many of my patients feel defeated if they can’t lose weight on their own,” said Muhammad Ghanem, MD, a bariatric surgeon at Orlando Health.
“But when I tell them obesity is a disease and that many of its causes are outside of their control, you can see their relief,” he said. “They often even shed a tear because they’ve struggled with their weight all their lives and finally have some validation.”
Individualizing Treatment
Obesity treatment plans should be tailored to patients on the basis of individual factors such as body mass index, existing medical conditions, and family history, Dr. Teixeira said.
Besides bariatric surgery, patients also may consider options such as counseling, lifestyle changes, and medications including the latest weight loss drugs, he added.
The clinical approach to obesity treatment has evolved, said Miguel Burch, MD, director of general surgery and chief of minimally invasive and gastrointestinal surgery at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, California, who was not involved in the survey.
“At one point in my career, I could say the only proven durable treatment for obesity is weight loss surgery. This was in the context of patients who were morbidly obese requiring risk reduction, not for a year or two but for decades, and not for 10-20 pounds but for 40-60 pounds of weight loss,” said Dr. Burch, who also directs the bariatric surgery program at Torrance Memorial Medical Center, Torrance, California.
“That was a previous era. We are now in a new one with the weight loss drugs,” Dr. Burch said. “In fact, it’s wonderful to have the opportunity to serve so many patients with an option other than just surgery.”
Still, Dr. Burch added, “we have to change the way we look at obesity management as being either surgery or medicine and start thinking about it more as a multidisciplinary approach to a chronic and potentially relapsing disease.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Most Americans’ views about obesity and bariatric surgery are colored by stigmas, according to a new survey from the healthcare system at Orlando Health.
For example, most Americans believe that weight loss surgery should be pursued only as a last resort and that bariatric surgery is a shortcut to shedding pounds, the survey found.
Common stigmas could be deterring people who qualify for bariatric surgery from pursuing it, according to Orlando Health, located in Florida.
“Bariatric surgery is by no means an easy way out. If you have the courage to ask for help and commit to doing the hard work of changing your diet and improving your life, you’re a champion in my book,” said Andre Teixeira, MD, medical director and bariatric surgeon at Orlando Health Weight Loss and Bariatric Surgery Institute, Orlando, Florida.
“Surgery is simply a tool to jumpstart that change,” he said. “After surgery, it is up to the patient to learn how to eat well, implement exercise into their routine, and shift their mindset to maintain their health for the rest of their lives.”
The survey results were published in January by Orlando Health.
Surveying Americans
The national survey, conducted for Orlando Health by the market research firm Ipsos in early November 2023, asked 1017 US adults whether they agreed or disagreed with several statements about weight loss and bariatric surgery. The statements and responses are as follows:
- “Weight loss surgery is a shortcut to shedding pounds” — 60% strongly or somewhat agreed, 38% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to answer.
- “Weight loss surgery is cosmetic and mainly impacts appearance” — 37% strongly or somewhat agreed, 61% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to respond.
- “Exercise and diet should be enough for weight loss” — 61% strongly or somewhat agreed, 37% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to respond.
- “Weight loss surgery should only be pursued as a last resort” — 79% strongly or somewhat agreed, 19% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to answer.
- “Surgery should be more socially accepted as a way to lose weight” — 46% strongly or somewhat agreed, 52% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to respond.
Men’s responses indicated that they are more likely to have negative views toward weight loss surgery than women. For example, 66% of men vs 54% of women respondents see weight loss surgery as a shortcut to losing weight. Conversely, 42% of men vs 50% of women said that surgery should be a more socially accepted weight loss method.
Opinions that might interfere with the willingness to have weight loss surgery were apparent among people with obesity. The survey found that 65% of respondents with obesity and 59% with extreme obesity view surgery as a shortcut. Eighty-two percent of respondents with obesity and 68% with extreme obesity see surgery as a last resort.
At the end of 2022, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders updated their guidelines for metabolic and bariatric surgery for the first time since 1991, with the aim of expanding access to surgery, Orlando Health noted. However, only 1% of those who are clinically eligible end up undergoing weight loss surgery, even with advancements in laparoscopic and robotic techniques that have made it safer and less invasive, the health system added.
“Because of the stigma around obesity and bariatric surgery, so many of my patients feel defeated if they can’t lose weight on their own,” said Muhammad Ghanem, MD, a bariatric surgeon at Orlando Health.
“But when I tell them obesity is a disease and that many of its causes are outside of their control, you can see their relief,” he said. “They often even shed a tear because they’ve struggled with their weight all their lives and finally have some validation.”
Individualizing Treatment
Obesity treatment plans should be tailored to patients on the basis of individual factors such as body mass index, existing medical conditions, and family history, Dr. Teixeira said.
Besides bariatric surgery, patients also may consider options such as counseling, lifestyle changes, and medications including the latest weight loss drugs, he added.
The clinical approach to obesity treatment has evolved, said Miguel Burch, MD, director of general surgery and chief of minimally invasive and gastrointestinal surgery at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, California, who was not involved in the survey.
“At one point in my career, I could say the only proven durable treatment for obesity is weight loss surgery. This was in the context of patients who were morbidly obese requiring risk reduction, not for a year or two but for decades, and not for 10-20 pounds but for 40-60 pounds of weight loss,” said Dr. Burch, who also directs the bariatric surgery program at Torrance Memorial Medical Center, Torrance, California.
“That was a previous era. We are now in a new one with the weight loss drugs,” Dr. Burch said. “In fact, it’s wonderful to have the opportunity to serve so many patients with an option other than just surgery.”
Still, Dr. Burch added, “we have to change the way we look at obesity management as being either surgery or medicine and start thinking about it more as a multidisciplinary approach to a chronic and potentially relapsing disease.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Most Americans’ views about obesity and bariatric surgery are colored by stigmas, according to a new survey from the healthcare system at Orlando Health.
For example, most Americans believe that weight loss surgery should be pursued only as a last resort and that bariatric surgery is a shortcut to shedding pounds, the survey found.
Common stigmas could be deterring people who qualify for bariatric surgery from pursuing it, according to Orlando Health, located in Florida.
“Bariatric surgery is by no means an easy way out. If you have the courage to ask for help and commit to doing the hard work of changing your diet and improving your life, you’re a champion in my book,” said Andre Teixeira, MD, medical director and bariatric surgeon at Orlando Health Weight Loss and Bariatric Surgery Institute, Orlando, Florida.
“Surgery is simply a tool to jumpstart that change,” he said. “After surgery, it is up to the patient to learn how to eat well, implement exercise into their routine, and shift their mindset to maintain their health for the rest of their lives.”
The survey results were published in January by Orlando Health.
Surveying Americans
The national survey, conducted for Orlando Health by the market research firm Ipsos in early November 2023, asked 1017 US adults whether they agreed or disagreed with several statements about weight loss and bariatric surgery. The statements and responses are as follows:
- “Weight loss surgery is a shortcut to shedding pounds” — 60% strongly or somewhat agreed, 38% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to answer.
- “Weight loss surgery is cosmetic and mainly impacts appearance” — 37% strongly or somewhat agreed, 61% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to respond.
- “Exercise and diet should be enough for weight loss” — 61% strongly or somewhat agreed, 37% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to respond.
- “Weight loss surgery should only be pursued as a last resort” — 79% strongly or somewhat agreed, 19% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to answer.
- “Surgery should be more socially accepted as a way to lose weight” — 46% strongly or somewhat agreed, 52% strongly or somewhat disagreed, and the remainder declined to respond.
Men’s responses indicated that they are more likely to have negative views toward weight loss surgery than women. For example, 66% of men vs 54% of women respondents see weight loss surgery as a shortcut to losing weight. Conversely, 42% of men vs 50% of women said that surgery should be a more socially accepted weight loss method.
Opinions that might interfere with the willingness to have weight loss surgery were apparent among people with obesity. The survey found that 65% of respondents with obesity and 59% with extreme obesity view surgery as a shortcut. Eighty-two percent of respondents with obesity and 68% with extreme obesity see surgery as a last resort.
At the end of 2022, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders updated their guidelines for metabolic and bariatric surgery for the first time since 1991, with the aim of expanding access to surgery, Orlando Health noted. However, only 1% of those who are clinically eligible end up undergoing weight loss surgery, even with advancements in laparoscopic and robotic techniques that have made it safer and less invasive, the health system added.
“Because of the stigma around obesity and bariatric surgery, so many of my patients feel defeated if they can’t lose weight on their own,” said Muhammad Ghanem, MD, a bariatric surgeon at Orlando Health.
“But when I tell them obesity is a disease and that many of its causes are outside of their control, you can see their relief,” he said. “They often even shed a tear because they’ve struggled with their weight all their lives and finally have some validation.”
Individualizing Treatment
Obesity treatment plans should be tailored to patients on the basis of individual factors such as body mass index, existing medical conditions, and family history, Dr. Teixeira said.
Besides bariatric surgery, patients also may consider options such as counseling, lifestyle changes, and medications including the latest weight loss drugs, he added.
The clinical approach to obesity treatment has evolved, said Miguel Burch, MD, director of general surgery and chief of minimally invasive and gastrointestinal surgery at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, California, who was not involved in the survey.
“At one point in my career, I could say the only proven durable treatment for obesity is weight loss surgery. This was in the context of patients who were morbidly obese requiring risk reduction, not for a year or two but for decades, and not for 10-20 pounds but for 40-60 pounds of weight loss,” said Dr. Burch, who also directs the bariatric surgery program at Torrance Memorial Medical Center, Torrance, California.
“That was a previous era. We are now in a new one with the weight loss drugs,” Dr. Burch said. “In fact, it’s wonderful to have the opportunity to serve so many patients with an option other than just surgery.”
Still, Dr. Burch added, “we have to change the way we look at obesity management as being either surgery or medicine and start thinking about it more as a multidisciplinary approach to a chronic and potentially relapsing disease.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Surveillance for 21 Possible Effects of Endocrine Disruptors
Santé Publique France (SPF), the French national public health agency, has released the findings of the PEPS’PE study, which was launched in 2021. The study aims to prioritize, following extensive consultation, the health effects to be monitored for their potential link to endocrine disruptors (EDs). Out of 59 health effects suspected to be associated with exposure to EDs, 21 have been considered a priority for surveillance. Based on these results and others, SPF will expand the scope of the Agency’s surveillance by incorporating new pathologies.
As part of its environmental health program and the National Strategy on EDs, To incorporate new scientific knowledge, the PEPS’PE project aims to prioritize health effects related to EDs and identify health events to integrate into the agency’s current surveillance. The 59 health effects suspected to be associated with exposure to EDs were to be evaluated based on two criteria: The weight of evidence and the epidemiological and societal impact of the health effect. A diverse panel of international experts and French stakeholders in the field of EDs classified 21 health effects as a priority for surveillance.
Among these effects, six reproductive health effects are already monitored in the surveillance program: Cryptorchidism, hypospadias, early puberty, testicular cancer, alteration of sperm quality, and endometriosis. In addition, infertility and decreased fertility (which are not currently monitored for their link to EDs) have been included.
Metabolic effects (including overweight and obesity, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome), child neurodevelopmental disorders (including behavioral disorders, intellectual deficits, and attention-deficit disorders), cancers (including breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphomas, and leukemias in children), and asthma have also been highlighted.
Furthermore, 22 effects were considered low priorities or deemed nonpriorities when, for example, they presented weak or moderate evidence with varying levels of interest in implementing surveillance. Finally, 16 health effects could not be prioritized because of a lack of scientific experts on these topics and a failure to achieve consensus (eg, bone disorders, adrenal disorders, and skin and eye disorders). Consensus was sought during this consultation using a Delphi method.
“These results indicate the need to expand the scope of the Agency’s surveillance beyond reproductive health, incorporating new pathologies when surveillance data are available,” SPF declared in a press release.
“With the initial decision elements obtained through this study, Santé Publique France will analyze the feasibility of implementing surveillance for effects classified as priorities.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Santé Publique France (SPF), the French national public health agency, has released the findings of the PEPS’PE study, which was launched in 2021. The study aims to prioritize, following extensive consultation, the health effects to be monitored for their potential link to endocrine disruptors (EDs). Out of 59 health effects suspected to be associated with exposure to EDs, 21 have been considered a priority for surveillance. Based on these results and others, SPF will expand the scope of the Agency’s surveillance by incorporating new pathologies.
As part of its environmental health program and the National Strategy on EDs, To incorporate new scientific knowledge, the PEPS’PE project aims to prioritize health effects related to EDs and identify health events to integrate into the agency’s current surveillance. The 59 health effects suspected to be associated with exposure to EDs were to be evaluated based on two criteria: The weight of evidence and the epidemiological and societal impact of the health effect. A diverse panel of international experts and French stakeholders in the field of EDs classified 21 health effects as a priority for surveillance.
Among these effects, six reproductive health effects are already monitored in the surveillance program: Cryptorchidism, hypospadias, early puberty, testicular cancer, alteration of sperm quality, and endometriosis. In addition, infertility and decreased fertility (which are not currently monitored for their link to EDs) have been included.
Metabolic effects (including overweight and obesity, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome), child neurodevelopmental disorders (including behavioral disorders, intellectual deficits, and attention-deficit disorders), cancers (including breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphomas, and leukemias in children), and asthma have also been highlighted.
Furthermore, 22 effects were considered low priorities or deemed nonpriorities when, for example, they presented weak or moderate evidence with varying levels of interest in implementing surveillance. Finally, 16 health effects could not be prioritized because of a lack of scientific experts on these topics and a failure to achieve consensus (eg, bone disorders, adrenal disorders, and skin and eye disorders). Consensus was sought during this consultation using a Delphi method.
“These results indicate the need to expand the scope of the Agency’s surveillance beyond reproductive health, incorporating new pathologies when surveillance data are available,” SPF declared in a press release.
“With the initial decision elements obtained through this study, Santé Publique France will analyze the feasibility of implementing surveillance for effects classified as priorities.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Santé Publique France (SPF), the French national public health agency, has released the findings of the PEPS’PE study, which was launched in 2021. The study aims to prioritize, following extensive consultation, the health effects to be monitored for their potential link to endocrine disruptors (EDs). Out of 59 health effects suspected to be associated with exposure to EDs, 21 have been considered a priority for surveillance. Based on these results and others, SPF will expand the scope of the Agency’s surveillance by incorporating new pathologies.
As part of its environmental health program and the National Strategy on EDs, To incorporate new scientific knowledge, the PEPS’PE project aims to prioritize health effects related to EDs and identify health events to integrate into the agency’s current surveillance. The 59 health effects suspected to be associated with exposure to EDs were to be evaluated based on two criteria: The weight of evidence and the epidemiological and societal impact of the health effect. A diverse panel of international experts and French stakeholders in the field of EDs classified 21 health effects as a priority for surveillance.
Among these effects, six reproductive health effects are already monitored in the surveillance program: Cryptorchidism, hypospadias, early puberty, testicular cancer, alteration of sperm quality, and endometriosis. In addition, infertility and decreased fertility (which are not currently monitored for their link to EDs) have been included.
Metabolic effects (including overweight and obesity, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome), child neurodevelopmental disorders (including behavioral disorders, intellectual deficits, and attention-deficit disorders), cancers (including breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphomas, and leukemias in children), and asthma have also been highlighted.
Furthermore, 22 effects were considered low priorities or deemed nonpriorities when, for example, they presented weak or moderate evidence with varying levels of interest in implementing surveillance. Finally, 16 health effects could not be prioritized because of a lack of scientific experts on these topics and a failure to achieve consensus (eg, bone disorders, adrenal disorders, and skin and eye disorders). Consensus was sought during this consultation using a Delphi method.
“These results indicate the need to expand the scope of the Agency’s surveillance beyond reproductive health, incorporating new pathologies when surveillance data are available,” SPF declared in a press release.
“With the initial decision elements obtained through this study, Santé Publique France will analyze the feasibility of implementing surveillance for effects classified as priorities.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Top 5 Medications That Can Increase Blood Glucose Levels
It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.
1. Glucocorticoids
Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.
Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.
2. Antipsychotic Therapy
Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.
Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.
3. Thiazide Diuretics
Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.
Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.
4. Statin Therapy
Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.
Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.
5. Beta-Blockers
Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.
Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.
Honorable Mention
Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.
A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.
Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.
Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.
1. Glucocorticoids
Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.
Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.
2. Antipsychotic Therapy
Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.
Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.
3. Thiazide Diuretics
Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.
Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.
4. Statin Therapy
Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.
Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.
5. Beta-Blockers
Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.
Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.
Honorable Mention
Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.
A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.
Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.
Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.
1. Glucocorticoids
Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.
Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.
2. Antipsychotic Therapy
Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.
Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.
3. Thiazide Diuretics
Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.
Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.
4. Statin Therapy
Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.
Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.
5. Beta-Blockers
Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.
Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.
Honorable Mention
Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.
A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.
Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.
Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.