User login
-
ASH 2022: New clinical data challenge long-held assumptions
The conference starts in New Orleans on Saturday, Dec. 10, , but a sample of what is to come was given last week in a preview media briefing, moderated by Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami. Dr. Sekeres, who recently authored a book on the FDA and how it regulates drug approvals, also serves as chair of the ASH Committee on Communications.
“Feeding Our Patients Gruel”
Dr. Sekeres expressed particular excitement about a multicenter randomized trial done in Italy. It showed that patients who have neutropenia after a stem cell transplant need not be required to eat a bland diet (Abstract 169).
“We for years have been essentially feeding our patients gruel in the hospital, and these are folks who have to be hospitalized for a stem cell transplant or in my case – I’m a leukemia specialist – for acute leukemia, for 4-6 weeks. The neutropenic diet consists of the blandest food you can imagine, with nothing to really spice it up.”
He noted that a neutropenic diet is so unpalatable that family members often sneak food into patient rooms, and “for years we’ve never seen adverse outcomes in any of those folks who instead of having mashed potatoes and oatmeal ate a corned beef sandwich for dinner.”
Now, the results from this trial “actually give us license to finally allow patients to eat whatever they want,” Dr. Sekeres said.
Practice-changing data
ASH experts pointed to two more presentations that are expected to change clinical practice. These include the finding that high-dose methotrexate does not reduce the risk for central nervous system relapse in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma (Abstract 214).
Another new study that seems to defy conventional wisdom showed that in adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia, intensive chemotherapy in an effort to achieve remission before a stem cell transplant did not result in better outcomes, compared with sequential conditioning and immediate transplant (Abstract 4).
Premature aging in HL survivors
ASH President Jane N. Winter, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, who also spoke at the briefing, highlighted a study that followed adult survivors of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma. This study, from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis and the Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y), found that these adult survivors are at significantly elevated risk for epigenetic age acceleration accompanied by neurocognitive deficits when compared with controls (Abstract 902).
“This is an area that is very near and dear to my heart,” she said. “Much of my career has focused on reducing the therapy to reduce the long-term consequences of treatments. Pediatricians have been very much wedded to very intensive therapies and tend to incorporate radiation more commonly in their treatment strategies for children than we do in adults.”
Dr. Winter noted that, although clinicians focus primarily on the link between mediastinal radiation and long-term adverse events such as breast cancer, “now we’re shedding a light on the neurocognitive deficits, which I think are underappreciated. Being able to screen for this impact of our treatment, and perhaps then develop strategies to deal with it or prevent it, will have very wide-ranging impact.”
Inherited thrombophilia and miscarriage
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the translational stem cell biology branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., who also spoke at the briefing, said that one of the abstracts most important to her practice is a study concerning pregnancy. It showed that low-molecular-weight heparin did not prevent miscarriage in pregnant women with confirmed inherited thrombophilia who had two or more prior pregnancy losses, compared with standard surveillance (Abstract LBA-5).
“This is not my field at all; on the other hand, as a hematologist and a woman, that’s what my emails in the middle of the night and my panicked phone calls are often about. Once somebody has one miscarriage, especially if they feel like they’re already over 30 and the clock is ticking, there’s a huge emphasis and a huge amount of pressure on obstetricians to basically work up for everything, kind of a shotgun [approach],” she said.
Those workups may reveal genetic mutations that are associated with mild elevations in risk for clotting. As a result, some pregnant women are put on anticoagulation therapy, which can cause complications for both pregnancy and delivery. These study findings don’t solve the problem of spontaneous pregnancy loss, but they at least rule out inherited thrombophilia as a preventable cause of miscarriages, Dr. Dunbar said.
Another potentially practice-changing abstract is a study showing that, in younger adults with mantle cell lymphoma, the addition of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (Imbruvica) to induction therapy and as maintenance with or without autologous stem cell transplant had strong efficacy and acceptable toxicity (Abstract 1).
“The results show that the ibrutinib-containing regimen without transplant is at least as good as the current standard of care with transplant.” Dr. Winter said. “Additional follow-up will be required to show definitively that an autotransplant is unnecessary if ibrutinib is included in this treatment regimen.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The conference starts in New Orleans on Saturday, Dec. 10, , but a sample of what is to come was given last week in a preview media briefing, moderated by Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami. Dr. Sekeres, who recently authored a book on the FDA and how it regulates drug approvals, also serves as chair of the ASH Committee on Communications.
“Feeding Our Patients Gruel”
Dr. Sekeres expressed particular excitement about a multicenter randomized trial done in Italy. It showed that patients who have neutropenia after a stem cell transplant need not be required to eat a bland diet (Abstract 169).
“We for years have been essentially feeding our patients gruel in the hospital, and these are folks who have to be hospitalized for a stem cell transplant or in my case – I’m a leukemia specialist – for acute leukemia, for 4-6 weeks. The neutropenic diet consists of the blandest food you can imagine, with nothing to really spice it up.”
He noted that a neutropenic diet is so unpalatable that family members often sneak food into patient rooms, and “for years we’ve never seen adverse outcomes in any of those folks who instead of having mashed potatoes and oatmeal ate a corned beef sandwich for dinner.”
Now, the results from this trial “actually give us license to finally allow patients to eat whatever they want,” Dr. Sekeres said.
Practice-changing data
ASH experts pointed to two more presentations that are expected to change clinical practice. These include the finding that high-dose methotrexate does not reduce the risk for central nervous system relapse in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma (Abstract 214).
Another new study that seems to defy conventional wisdom showed that in adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia, intensive chemotherapy in an effort to achieve remission before a stem cell transplant did not result in better outcomes, compared with sequential conditioning and immediate transplant (Abstract 4).
Premature aging in HL survivors
ASH President Jane N. Winter, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, who also spoke at the briefing, highlighted a study that followed adult survivors of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma. This study, from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis and the Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y), found that these adult survivors are at significantly elevated risk for epigenetic age acceleration accompanied by neurocognitive deficits when compared with controls (Abstract 902).
“This is an area that is very near and dear to my heart,” she said. “Much of my career has focused on reducing the therapy to reduce the long-term consequences of treatments. Pediatricians have been very much wedded to very intensive therapies and tend to incorporate radiation more commonly in their treatment strategies for children than we do in adults.”
Dr. Winter noted that, although clinicians focus primarily on the link between mediastinal radiation and long-term adverse events such as breast cancer, “now we’re shedding a light on the neurocognitive deficits, which I think are underappreciated. Being able to screen for this impact of our treatment, and perhaps then develop strategies to deal with it or prevent it, will have very wide-ranging impact.”
Inherited thrombophilia and miscarriage
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the translational stem cell biology branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., who also spoke at the briefing, said that one of the abstracts most important to her practice is a study concerning pregnancy. It showed that low-molecular-weight heparin did not prevent miscarriage in pregnant women with confirmed inherited thrombophilia who had two or more prior pregnancy losses, compared with standard surveillance (Abstract LBA-5).
“This is not my field at all; on the other hand, as a hematologist and a woman, that’s what my emails in the middle of the night and my panicked phone calls are often about. Once somebody has one miscarriage, especially if they feel like they’re already over 30 and the clock is ticking, there’s a huge emphasis and a huge amount of pressure on obstetricians to basically work up for everything, kind of a shotgun [approach],” she said.
Those workups may reveal genetic mutations that are associated with mild elevations in risk for clotting. As a result, some pregnant women are put on anticoagulation therapy, which can cause complications for both pregnancy and delivery. These study findings don’t solve the problem of spontaneous pregnancy loss, but they at least rule out inherited thrombophilia as a preventable cause of miscarriages, Dr. Dunbar said.
Another potentially practice-changing abstract is a study showing that, in younger adults with mantle cell lymphoma, the addition of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (Imbruvica) to induction therapy and as maintenance with or without autologous stem cell transplant had strong efficacy and acceptable toxicity (Abstract 1).
“The results show that the ibrutinib-containing regimen without transplant is at least as good as the current standard of care with transplant.” Dr. Winter said. “Additional follow-up will be required to show definitively that an autotransplant is unnecessary if ibrutinib is included in this treatment regimen.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The conference starts in New Orleans on Saturday, Dec. 10, , but a sample of what is to come was given last week in a preview media briefing, moderated by Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami. Dr. Sekeres, who recently authored a book on the FDA and how it regulates drug approvals, also serves as chair of the ASH Committee on Communications.
“Feeding Our Patients Gruel”
Dr. Sekeres expressed particular excitement about a multicenter randomized trial done in Italy. It showed that patients who have neutropenia after a stem cell transplant need not be required to eat a bland diet (Abstract 169).
“We for years have been essentially feeding our patients gruel in the hospital, and these are folks who have to be hospitalized for a stem cell transplant or in my case – I’m a leukemia specialist – for acute leukemia, for 4-6 weeks. The neutropenic diet consists of the blandest food you can imagine, with nothing to really spice it up.”
He noted that a neutropenic diet is so unpalatable that family members often sneak food into patient rooms, and “for years we’ve never seen adverse outcomes in any of those folks who instead of having mashed potatoes and oatmeal ate a corned beef sandwich for dinner.”
Now, the results from this trial “actually give us license to finally allow patients to eat whatever they want,” Dr. Sekeres said.
Practice-changing data
ASH experts pointed to two more presentations that are expected to change clinical practice. These include the finding that high-dose methotrexate does not reduce the risk for central nervous system relapse in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma (Abstract 214).
Another new study that seems to defy conventional wisdom showed that in adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia, intensive chemotherapy in an effort to achieve remission before a stem cell transplant did not result in better outcomes, compared with sequential conditioning and immediate transplant (Abstract 4).
Premature aging in HL survivors
ASH President Jane N. Winter, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, who also spoke at the briefing, highlighted a study that followed adult survivors of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma. This study, from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis and the Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y), found that these adult survivors are at significantly elevated risk for epigenetic age acceleration accompanied by neurocognitive deficits when compared with controls (Abstract 902).
“This is an area that is very near and dear to my heart,” she said. “Much of my career has focused on reducing the therapy to reduce the long-term consequences of treatments. Pediatricians have been very much wedded to very intensive therapies and tend to incorporate radiation more commonly in their treatment strategies for children than we do in adults.”
Dr. Winter noted that, although clinicians focus primarily on the link between mediastinal radiation and long-term adverse events such as breast cancer, “now we’re shedding a light on the neurocognitive deficits, which I think are underappreciated. Being able to screen for this impact of our treatment, and perhaps then develop strategies to deal with it or prevent it, will have very wide-ranging impact.”
Inherited thrombophilia and miscarriage
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the translational stem cell biology branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., who also spoke at the briefing, said that one of the abstracts most important to her practice is a study concerning pregnancy. It showed that low-molecular-weight heparin did not prevent miscarriage in pregnant women with confirmed inherited thrombophilia who had two or more prior pregnancy losses, compared with standard surveillance (Abstract LBA-5).
“This is not my field at all; on the other hand, as a hematologist and a woman, that’s what my emails in the middle of the night and my panicked phone calls are often about. Once somebody has one miscarriage, especially if they feel like they’re already over 30 and the clock is ticking, there’s a huge emphasis and a huge amount of pressure on obstetricians to basically work up for everything, kind of a shotgun [approach],” she said.
Those workups may reveal genetic mutations that are associated with mild elevations in risk for clotting. As a result, some pregnant women are put on anticoagulation therapy, which can cause complications for both pregnancy and delivery. These study findings don’t solve the problem of spontaneous pregnancy loss, but they at least rule out inherited thrombophilia as a preventable cause of miscarriages, Dr. Dunbar said.
Another potentially practice-changing abstract is a study showing that, in younger adults with mantle cell lymphoma, the addition of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (Imbruvica) to induction therapy and as maintenance with or without autologous stem cell transplant had strong efficacy and acceptable toxicity (Abstract 1).
“The results show that the ibrutinib-containing regimen without transplant is at least as good as the current standard of care with transplant.” Dr. Winter said. “Additional follow-up will be required to show definitively that an autotransplant is unnecessary if ibrutinib is included in this treatment regimen.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2022
Employers use patient assistance programs to offset their own costs
Anna Sutton was shocked when she received a letter from her husband’s job-based health plan stating that Humira, an expensive drug used to treat her daughter’s juvenile arthritis, was now on a long list of medications considered “nonessential benefits.”
The July 2021 letter said the family could either participate in a new effort overseen by a company called SaveOnSP and get the drug free of charge or be saddled with a monthly copayment that could top $1,000.
“It really gave us no choice,” said Mrs. Sutton, of Woodinville, Wash. She added that “every single [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for juvenile arthritis” was on the list of nonessential benefits.
Mrs. Sutton had unwittingly become part of a strategy that employers are using to deal with the high cost of drugs prescribed to treat conditions such as arthritis, psoriasis, cancer, and hemophilia.
Those employers are tapping into dollars provided through programs they have previously criticized: patient financial assistance initiatives set up by drugmakers, which some benefit managers have complained encourage patients to stay on expensive brand-name drugs when less expensive options might be available.
Now, though, employers, or the vendors and insurers they hire specifically to oversee such efforts, are seeking that money to offset their own costs. Drugmakers object, saying the money was intended primarily for patients. But some benefit brokers and companies like SaveOnSP say they can help trim employers’ spending on insurance – which, they say, could be the difference between an employer offering coverage to workers or not.
It’s the latest twist in a long-running dispute between the drug industry and insurers over which group is more to blame for rising costs to patients. And patients are, again, caught in the middle.
Patient advocates say the term “nonessential” stresses patients out even though it doesn’t mean the drugs – often called “specialty” drugs because of their high prices or the way they are made – are unnecessary.
Some advocates fear the new strategies could be “a way to weed out those with costly health care needs,” said Rachel Klein, deputy executive director of the AIDS Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group. Workers who rely on the drugs may feel pressured to change insurers or jobs.
Two versions of the new strategy are in play. Both are used mainly by self-insured employers that hire vendors, like SaveOnSP, which then work with the employers’ pharmacy benefit managers, such as Express Scripts/Cigna, to implement the strategy. There are also smaller vendors, like SHARx and Payer Matrix, some of which work directly with employers.
In one approach, insurers or employers continue to cover the drugs but designate them as “nonessential,” which allows the health plans to bypass annual limits set by the Affordable Care Act on how much patients can pay in out-of-pocket costs for drugs. The employer or hired vendor then raises the copay required of the worker, often sharply, but offers to substantially cut or eliminate that copay if the patient participates in the new effort. Workers who agree enroll in drugmaker financial assistance programs meant to cover the drug copays, and the vendor monitoring the effort aims to capture the maximum amount the drugmaker provides annually, according to a lawsuit filed in May by drugmaker Johnson & Johnson against SaveOnSP, which is based in Elma, N.Y.
The employer must still cover part of the cost of the drug, but the amount is reduced by the amount of copay assistance that is accessed. That assistance can vary widely and be as much as $20,000 a year for some drugs.
In the other approach, employers don’t bother naming drugs nonessential; they simply drop coverage for specific drugs or classes of drugs. Then, the outside vendor helps patients provide the financial and other information needed to apply for free medication from drugmakers through charity programs intended for uninsured patients.
“We’re seeing it in every state at this point,” said Becky Burns, chief operating officer and chief financial officer at the Bleeding and Clotting Disorders Institute in Peoria, Ill., a federally funded hemophilia treatment center.
The strategies are mostly being used in self-insured employer health plans, which are governed by federal laws that give broad flexibility to employers in designing health benefits.
Still, some patient advocates say these programs can lead to delays for patients in accessing medications while applications are processed – and sometimes unexpected bills for consumers.
“We have patients get billed after they max out their assistance,” said Kollet Koulianos, vice president of payer relations at the National Hemophilia Foundation. Once she gets involved, vendors often claim the bills were sent in error.
Even though only about 2% of the workforce needs the drugs, which can cost thousands of dollars a dose, they can lead to a hefty financial liability for self-insured employers, said Drew Mann, a benefits consultant in Knoxville, Tenn., whose clientele includes employers that use variations of these programs.
Before employer health plans took advantage of such assistance, patients often signed up for these programs on their own, receiving coupons that covered their share of the drug’s cost. In that circumstance, drugmakers often paid less than they do under the new employer schemes because a patient’s out-of-pocket costs were capped at lower amounts.
Brokers and the CEOs of firms offering the new programs say that in most cases patients continue to get their drugs, often with little or no out-of-pocket costs.
If workers do not qualify for charity because their income is too high, or for another reason, the employer might make an exception and pay the claim or look for an alternative solution, Mr. Mann said. Patient groups noted that some specialty drugs may not have any alternatives.
How this practice will play out in the long run remains uncertain. Drugmakers offer both copay assistance and charity care in part because they know many patients, even those with insurance, cannot afford their products. The programs are also good public relations and a tax write-off. But the new emphasis by some employers on maximizing the amount they or their insurers can collect from the programs could cause some drugmakers to take issue with the new strategies or even reconsider their programs.
“Even though our client, like most manufacturers, provides billions in discounts and rebates to health insurers as part of their negotiations, the insurers also want this additional pool of funds, which is meant to help people who can’t meet the copay,” said Harry Sandick, a lawyer representing J&J.
J&J’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, alleges that patients are “coerced” into participating in copay assistance programs after their drugs are deemed “nonessential” and therefore are “no longer subject to the ACA’s annual out-of-pocket maximum.”
Once patients enroll, the money from the drugmaker goes to the insurer or employer plan, with SaveOnSP retaining 25%, according to the lawsuit. It claims J&J has lost $100 million to these efforts.
None of that money counts toward patients’ deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums for the year.
In addition to the lawsuit over the copay assistance program efforts, there has been other reaction to the new employer strategies. In an October letter to physicians, the Johnson & Johnson Patient Assistance Foundation, a separate entity, said it will no longer offer free medications to patients with insurance starting in January, citing the rise of such “alternative funding programs.”
Still, J&J spokesperson L.D. Platt said the drugmaker has plans, also in January, to roll out other assistance to patients who may be “underinsured” so they won’t be affected by the foundation’s decision.
In a statement, SaveOnSP said that employers object to drug companies’ “using their employees’ ongoing need for these drugs as an excuse to keep hiking the drugs’ prices” and that the firm simply “advises these employers on how to fight back against rising prices while getting employees the drugs they need at no cost to the employees.”
In a court filing, SaveOnSP said drugmakers have another option if they don’t like efforts by insurers and employers to max out what they can get from the programs: reduce the amount of assistance available. J&J, the filing said, did just that when it recently cut its allotted amount of copay assistance for psoriasis drugs Stelara and Tremfya from $20,000 to $6,000 per participant annually. The filing noted that SaveOnSP participants would still have no copay for those drugs.
For Mrs. Sutton’s part, her family did participate in the program offered through her husband’s work-based insurance plan, agreeing to have SaveOnSP monitor their enrollment and payments from the drugmaker.
So far, her 15-year-old daughter has continued to get Humira, and she has not been billed a copay.
Even so, “the whole process seems kind of slimy to me,” she said. “The patients are caught in the middle between the drug industry and the insurance industry, each trying to get as much money as possible out of the other.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Anna Sutton was shocked when she received a letter from her husband’s job-based health plan stating that Humira, an expensive drug used to treat her daughter’s juvenile arthritis, was now on a long list of medications considered “nonessential benefits.”
The July 2021 letter said the family could either participate in a new effort overseen by a company called SaveOnSP and get the drug free of charge or be saddled with a monthly copayment that could top $1,000.
“It really gave us no choice,” said Mrs. Sutton, of Woodinville, Wash. She added that “every single [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for juvenile arthritis” was on the list of nonessential benefits.
Mrs. Sutton had unwittingly become part of a strategy that employers are using to deal with the high cost of drugs prescribed to treat conditions such as arthritis, psoriasis, cancer, and hemophilia.
Those employers are tapping into dollars provided through programs they have previously criticized: patient financial assistance initiatives set up by drugmakers, which some benefit managers have complained encourage patients to stay on expensive brand-name drugs when less expensive options might be available.
Now, though, employers, or the vendors and insurers they hire specifically to oversee such efforts, are seeking that money to offset their own costs. Drugmakers object, saying the money was intended primarily for patients. But some benefit brokers and companies like SaveOnSP say they can help trim employers’ spending on insurance – which, they say, could be the difference between an employer offering coverage to workers or not.
It’s the latest twist in a long-running dispute between the drug industry and insurers over which group is more to blame for rising costs to patients. And patients are, again, caught in the middle.
Patient advocates say the term “nonessential” stresses patients out even though it doesn’t mean the drugs – often called “specialty” drugs because of their high prices or the way they are made – are unnecessary.
Some advocates fear the new strategies could be “a way to weed out those with costly health care needs,” said Rachel Klein, deputy executive director of the AIDS Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group. Workers who rely on the drugs may feel pressured to change insurers or jobs.
Two versions of the new strategy are in play. Both are used mainly by self-insured employers that hire vendors, like SaveOnSP, which then work with the employers’ pharmacy benefit managers, such as Express Scripts/Cigna, to implement the strategy. There are also smaller vendors, like SHARx and Payer Matrix, some of which work directly with employers.
In one approach, insurers or employers continue to cover the drugs but designate them as “nonessential,” which allows the health plans to bypass annual limits set by the Affordable Care Act on how much patients can pay in out-of-pocket costs for drugs. The employer or hired vendor then raises the copay required of the worker, often sharply, but offers to substantially cut or eliminate that copay if the patient participates in the new effort. Workers who agree enroll in drugmaker financial assistance programs meant to cover the drug copays, and the vendor monitoring the effort aims to capture the maximum amount the drugmaker provides annually, according to a lawsuit filed in May by drugmaker Johnson & Johnson against SaveOnSP, which is based in Elma, N.Y.
The employer must still cover part of the cost of the drug, but the amount is reduced by the amount of copay assistance that is accessed. That assistance can vary widely and be as much as $20,000 a year for some drugs.
In the other approach, employers don’t bother naming drugs nonessential; they simply drop coverage for specific drugs or classes of drugs. Then, the outside vendor helps patients provide the financial and other information needed to apply for free medication from drugmakers through charity programs intended for uninsured patients.
“We’re seeing it in every state at this point,” said Becky Burns, chief operating officer and chief financial officer at the Bleeding and Clotting Disorders Institute in Peoria, Ill., a federally funded hemophilia treatment center.
The strategies are mostly being used in self-insured employer health plans, which are governed by federal laws that give broad flexibility to employers in designing health benefits.
Still, some patient advocates say these programs can lead to delays for patients in accessing medications while applications are processed – and sometimes unexpected bills for consumers.
“We have patients get billed after they max out their assistance,” said Kollet Koulianos, vice president of payer relations at the National Hemophilia Foundation. Once she gets involved, vendors often claim the bills were sent in error.
Even though only about 2% of the workforce needs the drugs, which can cost thousands of dollars a dose, they can lead to a hefty financial liability for self-insured employers, said Drew Mann, a benefits consultant in Knoxville, Tenn., whose clientele includes employers that use variations of these programs.
Before employer health plans took advantage of such assistance, patients often signed up for these programs on their own, receiving coupons that covered their share of the drug’s cost. In that circumstance, drugmakers often paid less than they do under the new employer schemes because a patient’s out-of-pocket costs were capped at lower amounts.
Brokers and the CEOs of firms offering the new programs say that in most cases patients continue to get their drugs, often with little or no out-of-pocket costs.
If workers do not qualify for charity because their income is too high, or for another reason, the employer might make an exception and pay the claim or look for an alternative solution, Mr. Mann said. Patient groups noted that some specialty drugs may not have any alternatives.
How this practice will play out in the long run remains uncertain. Drugmakers offer both copay assistance and charity care in part because they know many patients, even those with insurance, cannot afford their products. The programs are also good public relations and a tax write-off. But the new emphasis by some employers on maximizing the amount they or their insurers can collect from the programs could cause some drugmakers to take issue with the new strategies or even reconsider their programs.
“Even though our client, like most manufacturers, provides billions in discounts and rebates to health insurers as part of their negotiations, the insurers also want this additional pool of funds, which is meant to help people who can’t meet the copay,” said Harry Sandick, a lawyer representing J&J.
J&J’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, alleges that patients are “coerced” into participating in copay assistance programs after their drugs are deemed “nonessential” and therefore are “no longer subject to the ACA’s annual out-of-pocket maximum.”
Once patients enroll, the money from the drugmaker goes to the insurer or employer plan, with SaveOnSP retaining 25%, according to the lawsuit. It claims J&J has lost $100 million to these efforts.
None of that money counts toward patients’ deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums for the year.
In addition to the lawsuit over the copay assistance program efforts, there has been other reaction to the new employer strategies. In an October letter to physicians, the Johnson & Johnson Patient Assistance Foundation, a separate entity, said it will no longer offer free medications to patients with insurance starting in January, citing the rise of such “alternative funding programs.”
Still, J&J spokesperson L.D. Platt said the drugmaker has plans, also in January, to roll out other assistance to patients who may be “underinsured” so they won’t be affected by the foundation’s decision.
In a statement, SaveOnSP said that employers object to drug companies’ “using their employees’ ongoing need for these drugs as an excuse to keep hiking the drugs’ prices” and that the firm simply “advises these employers on how to fight back against rising prices while getting employees the drugs they need at no cost to the employees.”
In a court filing, SaveOnSP said drugmakers have another option if they don’t like efforts by insurers and employers to max out what they can get from the programs: reduce the amount of assistance available. J&J, the filing said, did just that when it recently cut its allotted amount of copay assistance for psoriasis drugs Stelara and Tremfya from $20,000 to $6,000 per participant annually. The filing noted that SaveOnSP participants would still have no copay for those drugs.
For Mrs. Sutton’s part, her family did participate in the program offered through her husband’s work-based insurance plan, agreeing to have SaveOnSP monitor their enrollment and payments from the drugmaker.
So far, her 15-year-old daughter has continued to get Humira, and she has not been billed a copay.
Even so, “the whole process seems kind of slimy to me,” she said. “The patients are caught in the middle between the drug industry and the insurance industry, each trying to get as much money as possible out of the other.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Anna Sutton was shocked when she received a letter from her husband’s job-based health plan stating that Humira, an expensive drug used to treat her daughter’s juvenile arthritis, was now on a long list of medications considered “nonessential benefits.”
The July 2021 letter said the family could either participate in a new effort overseen by a company called SaveOnSP and get the drug free of charge or be saddled with a monthly copayment that could top $1,000.
“It really gave us no choice,” said Mrs. Sutton, of Woodinville, Wash. She added that “every single [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for juvenile arthritis” was on the list of nonessential benefits.
Mrs. Sutton had unwittingly become part of a strategy that employers are using to deal with the high cost of drugs prescribed to treat conditions such as arthritis, psoriasis, cancer, and hemophilia.
Those employers are tapping into dollars provided through programs they have previously criticized: patient financial assistance initiatives set up by drugmakers, which some benefit managers have complained encourage patients to stay on expensive brand-name drugs when less expensive options might be available.
Now, though, employers, or the vendors and insurers they hire specifically to oversee such efforts, are seeking that money to offset their own costs. Drugmakers object, saying the money was intended primarily for patients. But some benefit brokers and companies like SaveOnSP say they can help trim employers’ spending on insurance – which, they say, could be the difference between an employer offering coverage to workers or not.
It’s the latest twist in a long-running dispute between the drug industry and insurers over which group is more to blame for rising costs to patients. And patients are, again, caught in the middle.
Patient advocates say the term “nonessential” stresses patients out even though it doesn’t mean the drugs – often called “specialty” drugs because of their high prices or the way they are made – are unnecessary.
Some advocates fear the new strategies could be “a way to weed out those with costly health care needs,” said Rachel Klein, deputy executive director of the AIDS Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group. Workers who rely on the drugs may feel pressured to change insurers or jobs.
Two versions of the new strategy are in play. Both are used mainly by self-insured employers that hire vendors, like SaveOnSP, which then work with the employers’ pharmacy benefit managers, such as Express Scripts/Cigna, to implement the strategy. There are also smaller vendors, like SHARx and Payer Matrix, some of which work directly with employers.
In one approach, insurers or employers continue to cover the drugs but designate them as “nonessential,” which allows the health plans to bypass annual limits set by the Affordable Care Act on how much patients can pay in out-of-pocket costs for drugs. The employer or hired vendor then raises the copay required of the worker, often sharply, but offers to substantially cut or eliminate that copay if the patient participates in the new effort. Workers who agree enroll in drugmaker financial assistance programs meant to cover the drug copays, and the vendor monitoring the effort aims to capture the maximum amount the drugmaker provides annually, according to a lawsuit filed in May by drugmaker Johnson & Johnson against SaveOnSP, which is based in Elma, N.Y.
The employer must still cover part of the cost of the drug, but the amount is reduced by the amount of copay assistance that is accessed. That assistance can vary widely and be as much as $20,000 a year for some drugs.
In the other approach, employers don’t bother naming drugs nonessential; they simply drop coverage for specific drugs or classes of drugs. Then, the outside vendor helps patients provide the financial and other information needed to apply for free medication from drugmakers through charity programs intended for uninsured patients.
“We’re seeing it in every state at this point,” said Becky Burns, chief operating officer and chief financial officer at the Bleeding and Clotting Disorders Institute in Peoria, Ill., a federally funded hemophilia treatment center.
The strategies are mostly being used in self-insured employer health plans, which are governed by federal laws that give broad flexibility to employers in designing health benefits.
Still, some patient advocates say these programs can lead to delays for patients in accessing medications while applications are processed – and sometimes unexpected bills for consumers.
“We have patients get billed after they max out their assistance,” said Kollet Koulianos, vice president of payer relations at the National Hemophilia Foundation. Once she gets involved, vendors often claim the bills were sent in error.
Even though only about 2% of the workforce needs the drugs, which can cost thousands of dollars a dose, they can lead to a hefty financial liability for self-insured employers, said Drew Mann, a benefits consultant in Knoxville, Tenn., whose clientele includes employers that use variations of these programs.
Before employer health plans took advantage of such assistance, patients often signed up for these programs on their own, receiving coupons that covered their share of the drug’s cost. In that circumstance, drugmakers often paid less than they do under the new employer schemes because a patient’s out-of-pocket costs were capped at lower amounts.
Brokers and the CEOs of firms offering the new programs say that in most cases patients continue to get their drugs, often with little or no out-of-pocket costs.
If workers do not qualify for charity because their income is too high, or for another reason, the employer might make an exception and pay the claim or look for an alternative solution, Mr. Mann said. Patient groups noted that some specialty drugs may not have any alternatives.
How this practice will play out in the long run remains uncertain. Drugmakers offer both copay assistance and charity care in part because they know many patients, even those with insurance, cannot afford their products. The programs are also good public relations and a tax write-off. But the new emphasis by some employers on maximizing the amount they or their insurers can collect from the programs could cause some drugmakers to take issue with the new strategies or even reconsider their programs.
“Even though our client, like most manufacturers, provides billions in discounts and rebates to health insurers as part of their negotiations, the insurers also want this additional pool of funds, which is meant to help people who can’t meet the copay,” said Harry Sandick, a lawyer representing J&J.
J&J’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, alleges that patients are “coerced” into participating in copay assistance programs after their drugs are deemed “nonessential” and therefore are “no longer subject to the ACA’s annual out-of-pocket maximum.”
Once patients enroll, the money from the drugmaker goes to the insurer or employer plan, with SaveOnSP retaining 25%, according to the lawsuit. It claims J&J has lost $100 million to these efforts.
None of that money counts toward patients’ deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums for the year.
In addition to the lawsuit over the copay assistance program efforts, there has been other reaction to the new employer strategies. In an October letter to physicians, the Johnson & Johnson Patient Assistance Foundation, a separate entity, said it will no longer offer free medications to patients with insurance starting in January, citing the rise of such “alternative funding programs.”
Still, J&J spokesperson L.D. Platt said the drugmaker has plans, also in January, to roll out other assistance to patients who may be “underinsured” so they won’t be affected by the foundation’s decision.
In a statement, SaveOnSP said that employers object to drug companies’ “using their employees’ ongoing need for these drugs as an excuse to keep hiking the drugs’ prices” and that the firm simply “advises these employers on how to fight back against rising prices while getting employees the drugs they need at no cost to the employees.”
In a court filing, SaveOnSP said drugmakers have another option if they don’t like efforts by insurers and employers to max out what they can get from the programs: reduce the amount of assistance available. J&J, the filing said, did just that when it recently cut its allotted amount of copay assistance for psoriasis drugs Stelara and Tremfya from $20,000 to $6,000 per participant annually. The filing noted that SaveOnSP participants would still have no copay for those drugs.
For Mrs. Sutton’s part, her family did participate in the program offered through her husband’s work-based insurance plan, agreeing to have SaveOnSP monitor their enrollment and payments from the drugmaker.
So far, her 15-year-old daughter has continued to get Humira, and she has not been billed a copay.
Even so, “the whole process seems kind of slimy to me,” she said. “The patients are caught in the middle between the drug industry and the insurance industry, each trying to get as much money as possible out of the other.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Florida doc dies by suicide after allegedly drugging and raping patients
according to a police statement.
A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.
Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.
Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.
Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.
The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.
At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.
“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”
Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.
Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a police statement.
A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.
Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.
Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.
Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.
The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.
At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.
“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”
Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.
Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a police statement.
A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.
Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.
Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.
Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.
The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.
At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.
“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”
Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.
Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
High cost and demand for old cancer drug sparks crisis
At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.
Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.
“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”
In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial
In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.
Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.
But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.
Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit
The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.
Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.
In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”
“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.
In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.
Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”
The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?
There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.
Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.
The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”
In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”
If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”
Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”
Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.
At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.
Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.
“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”
In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial
In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.
Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.
But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.
Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit
The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.
Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.
In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”
“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.
In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.
Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”
The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?
There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.
Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.
The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”
In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”
If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”
Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”
Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.
At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.
Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.
“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”
In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial
In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.
Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.
But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.
Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit
The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.
Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.
In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”
“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.
In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.
Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”
The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?
There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.
Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.
The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”
In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”
If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”
Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”
Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.
Transplant provides no clear survival benefit in real-world MCL study
In younger patients with mantle cell lymphoma treated in U.S. community oncology settings in recent years, use of autologous transplant was not associated with improved survival, results of a large observational study show.
Autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT) use was not linked overall survival (OS), according to the authors of the retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) between 2011 and 2021.
This lack of a clear survival benefit with use of ASCT is an “apparent contradiction” with prospective data from earlier clinical trials, authors wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology
However, they added, the finding is consistent with several recent registry analyses that also do not support a link between ASCT and overall survival in patients with MCL.
Although these findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the study, the results at least suggest that it is ethical to do research that doesn’t involve ASCT, study author Peter Martin, MD, said in an interview.
Furthermore, emerging data from the randomized TRIANGLE study from the European MCL Network suggest the potential for ASCT to be replaced by maintenance therapy with the Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, according to Dr. Martin, associate professor with Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“There are probably a lot of questions that will come up there, but essentially the barriers to research that do not include ASCT have been moved away, and we can go ahead and study non-ASCT (approaches) in younger patients,” Dr. Martin said.
No clear OS benefit
In current guidelines, recommended initial therapy for MCL patients younger than 65 years includes use of high-dose cytarabine-containing chemoimmunotherapy induction, followed by ASCT as consolidation, and then rituximab maintenance, Dr. Martin and coauthors say in their report.
Their primary analysis was based on the Flatiron Health database, which is derived from electronic medical records, mostly in U.S. community oncology practices, according to the report.
The researchers identified 1,274 patients under the age of 65 with a record of first-line treatment for MCL, and of those, 962 (or 76%) were considered eligible for ASCT.
Among ASCT-eligible patients, there was no significant association between receipt of ASCT and OS, with a hazard ratio of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.18). The 3-year OS was 88% for patients receiving ASCT and similarly, 84% for those who did not, according to authors.
Likewise, there was no association between ASCT and real-world time to next treatment, an endpoint defined as time from start of first-line therapy to subsequent treatment or death, the report says.
Findings in perspective
The lack of clear survival benefit with ASCT in this and other recent observational studies may be explained in part by improvements in induction regimens, according to Timothy Fenske, MD, professor in the department of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
“As our induction regimens have improved, it is very possible that the benefit for autologous transplantation will become less apparent,” Dr. Fenske said in an interview.
The discussion over ASCT in MCL is expected to evolve further in light of findings from TRIANGLE and EA4151, a randomized phase 3 trial of rituximab with or without ASCT specifically in patients with minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative MCL in first complete remission.
“If that study shows that the MRD-negative patients do not have much benefit from autologous transplantation,” Dr. Fenske said, “I think these studies will all be giving the same message – that autologous transplantation was beneficial back when induction regimens were poor (for example, CHOP without rituximab), but will have much less benefit in patients receiving modern inductions, which by and large will get more patients to be MRD negative.”
However, subgroup analyses of those TRIANGLE will be important, he added, since some patients may still benefit from ASCT, such as younger patients who remain MRD positive, or who have certain other high-risk molecular features.
Dr. Martin reported consulting or advisory roles with Janssen, BeiGene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Verastem, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Epizyme, Merck, MorphoSys, and Takeda. He reported institutional research funding from Karyopharm Therapeutics.
In younger patients with mantle cell lymphoma treated in U.S. community oncology settings in recent years, use of autologous transplant was not associated with improved survival, results of a large observational study show.
Autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT) use was not linked overall survival (OS), according to the authors of the retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) between 2011 and 2021.
This lack of a clear survival benefit with use of ASCT is an “apparent contradiction” with prospective data from earlier clinical trials, authors wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology
However, they added, the finding is consistent with several recent registry analyses that also do not support a link between ASCT and overall survival in patients with MCL.
Although these findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the study, the results at least suggest that it is ethical to do research that doesn’t involve ASCT, study author Peter Martin, MD, said in an interview.
Furthermore, emerging data from the randomized TRIANGLE study from the European MCL Network suggest the potential for ASCT to be replaced by maintenance therapy with the Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, according to Dr. Martin, associate professor with Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“There are probably a lot of questions that will come up there, but essentially the barriers to research that do not include ASCT have been moved away, and we can go ahead and study non-ASCT (approaches) in younger patients,” Dr. Martin said.
No clear OS benefit
In current guidelines, recommended initial therapy for MCL patients younger than 65 years includes use of high-dose cytarabine-containing chemoimmunotherapy induction, followed by ASCT as consolidation, and then rituximab maintenance, Dr. Martin and coauthors say in their report.
Their primary analysis was based on the Flatiron Health database, which is derived from electronic medical records, mostly in U.S. community oncology practices, according to the report.
The researchers identified 1,274 patients under the age of 65 with a record of first-line treatment for MCL, and of those, 962 (or 76%) were considered eligible for ASCT.
Among ASCT-eligible patients, there was no significant association between receipt of ASCT and OS, with a hazard ratio of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.18). The 3-year OS was 88% for patients receiving ASCT and similarly, 84% for those who did not, according to authors.
Likewise, there was no association between ASCT and real-world time to next treatment, an endpoint defined as time from start of first-line therapy to subsequent treatment or death, the report says.
Findings in perspective
The lack of clear survival benefit with ASCT in this and other recent observational studies may be explained in part by improvements in induction regimens, according to Timothy Fenske, MD, professor in the department of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
“As our induction regimens have improved, it is very possible that the benefit for autologous transplantation will become less apparent,” Dr. Fenske said in an interview.
The discussion over ASCT in MCL is expected to evolve further in light of findings from TRIANGLE and EA4151, a randomized phase 3 trial of rituximab with or without ASCT specifically in patients with minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative MCL in first complete remission.
“If that study shows that the MRD-negative patients do not have much benefit from autologous transplantation,” Dr. Fenske said, “I think these studies will all be giving the same message – that autologous transplantation was beneficial back when induction regimens were poor (for example, CHOP without rituximab), but will have much less benefit in patients receiving modern inductions, which by and large will get more patients to be MRD negative.”
However, subgroup analyses of those TRIANGLE will be important, he added, since some patients may still benefit from ASCT, such as younger patients who remain MRD positive, or who have certain other high-risk molecular features.
Dr. Martin reported consulting or advisory roles with Janssen, BeiGene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Verastem, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Epizyme, Merck, MorphoSys, and Takeda. He reported institutional research funding from Karyopharm Therapeutics.
In younger patients with mantle cell lymphoma treated in U.S. community oncology settings in recent years, use of autologous transplant was not associated with improved survival, results of a large observational study show.
Autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT) use was not linked overall survival (OS), according to the authors of the retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) between 2011 and 2021.
This lack of a clear survival benefit with use of ASCT is an “apparent contradiction” with prospective data from earlier clinical trials, authors wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology
However, they added, the finding is consistent with several recent registry analyses that also do not support a link between ASCT and overall survival in patients with MCL.
Although these findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the study, the results at least suggest that it is ethical to do research that doesn’t involve ASCT, study author Peter Martin, MD, said in an interview.
Furthermore, emerging data from the randomized TRIANGLE study from the European MCL Network suggest the potential for ASCT to be replaced by maintenance therapy with the Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, according to Dr. Martin, associate professor with Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“There are probably a lot of questions that will come up there, but essentially the barriers to research that do not include ASCT have been moved away, and we can go ahead and study non-ASCT (approaches) in younger patients,” Dr. Martin said.
No clear OS benefit
In current guidelines, recommended initial therapy for MCL patients younger than 65 years includes use of high-dose cytarabine-containing chemoimmunotherapy induction, followed by ASCT as consolidation, and then rituximab maintenance, Dr. Martin and coauthors say in their report.
Their primary analysis was based on the Flatiron Health database, which is derived from electronic medical records, mostly in U.S. community oncology practices, according to the report.
The researchers identified 1,274 patients under the age of 65 with a record of first-line treatment for MCL, and of those, 962 (or 76%) were considered eligible for ASCT.
Among ASCT-eligible patients, there was no significant association between receipt of ASCT and OS, with a hazard ratio of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.18). The 3-year OS was 88% for patients receiving ASCT and similarly, 84% for those who did not, according to authors.
Likewise, there was no association between ASCT and real-world time to next treatment, an endpoint defined as time from start of first-line therapy to subsequent treatment or death, the report says.
Findings in perspective
The lack of clear survival benefit with ASCT in this and other recent observational studies may be explained in part by improvements in induction regimens, according to Timothy Fenske, MD, professor in the department of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
“As our induction regimens have improved, it is very possible that the benefit for autologous transplantation will become less apparent,” Dr. Fenske said in an interview.
The discussion over ASCT in MCL is expected to evolve further in light of findings from TRIANGLE and EA4151, a randomized phase 3 trial of rituximab with or without ASCT specifically in patients with minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative MCL in first complete remission.
“If that study shows that the MRD-negative patients do not have much benefit from autologous transplantation,” Dr. Fenske said, “I think these studies will all be giving the same message – that autologous transplantation was beneficial back when induction regimens were poor (for example, CHOP without rituximab), but will have much less benefit in patients receiving modern inductions, which by and large will get more patients to be MRD negative.”
However, subgroup analyses of those TRIANGLE will be important, he added, since some patients may still benefit from ASCT, such as younger patients who remain MRD positive, or who have certain other high-risk molecular features.
Dr. Martin reported consulting or advisory roles with Janssen, BeiGene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Verastem, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Epizyme, Merck, MorphoSys, and Takeda. He reported institutional research funding from Karyopharm Therapeutics.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
FDA approves olutasidenib for some AML patients
Specifically, the drug is approved for use in patients who have R/R AML with a susceptible isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test.
The FDA also approved the Abbott RealTime IDH1 Assay to select patients for treatment.
Olutasidenib is an oral inhibitor of mutated IDH1 that has been designed to bind and inhibit mutated IDH1 to reduce hydroxyglutarate levels and restore cellular differentiation of myeloid cells, says the manufacturer, Rigel.
About half of all patients with AML have relapse after treatment and remission, and about 10%-40% have refractory cases and do not achieve remission even after intensive treatment, the company noted.
“Given the limited treatment options for adult patients with mIDH1 R/R AML, who typically have a poor prognosis, olutasidenib may provide an effective new treatment option with a well-characterized safety profile,” Jorges Cortes, MD, director of the Georgia Cancer Center, Augusta, commented in the company press release. He was an investigator on the phase 2 trial that led to the drug’s approval.
This was Study 2102-HEM-101 (NCT02719574), an open-label, single-arm, multicenter clinical trial that included 147 adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML with an IDH1 mutation confirmed using the Abbott assay.
Olutasidenib was given orally at 150 mg twice daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (performed in 16 patients [11%]). The median treatment duration was 4.7 months (range, 0.1-26 months).
The FDA noted that efficacy was established on the rate of complete remission (CR) plus complete remission with partial hematologic recovery (CRh), the duration of CR+CRh, and the rate of conversion from transfusion dependence to independence.
The CR+CRh rate was 35% (95% confidence interval, 27%-43%), including 32% CR and 2.7% CRh. The median time to CR+CRh was 1.9 months (range, 0.9-5.6 months), and the median duration of CR+CRh was 25.9 months (95% CI, 13.5 months to not reached).
Commenting on these results in the company statement, Dr. Cortes noted that among the patients who responded, more than 90% were experiencing incomplete remission. He added that the “25.9 months median duration of CR+CRh is a clinically meaningful improvement for AML patients and appears to be longer than currently available treatment options.”
The FDA also noted that among the 86 patients who were dependent on red blood cell (RBC) and/or platelet transfusions at baseline, 29 (34%) became independent of RBC and platelet transfusions during any 56-day postbaseline period.
Of the 61 patients who were independent of both RBC and platelet transfusions at baseline, 39 (64%) remained transfusion-independent during any 56-day post-baseline period.
The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) were nausea, fatigue/malaise, arthralgia, constipation, leukocytosis, dyspnea, fever, rash, mucositis, diarrhea, and transaminitis.
The prescribing information contains a boxed warning about the risk for differentiation syndrome, which can be fatal.
Differentiation syndrome is associated with rapid proliferation and differentiation of myeloid cells and may be life-threatening or fatal, the company explained. Symptoms may include leukocytosis, dyspnea, pulmonary infiltrates/pleuropericardial effusion, kidney injury, hypotension, fever, and weight gain.
In the trial, differentiation syndrome was observed in 16% of patients, with grade 3 or 4 occurring in 8% of patients treated and death in 1% of patients. It occurred as early as 1 day and up to 18 months after starting treatment.
In most cases, differentiation syndrome was manageable with dose interruption and corticosteroids, the company said. Of the 25 patients who experienced differentiation syndrome, 19 (76%) recovered after treatment or after dose interruption.
Further details are available in the full prescribing information.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the drug is approved for use in patients who have R/R AML with a susceptible isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test.
The FDA also approved the Abbott RealTime IDH1 Assay to select patients for treatment.
Olutasidenib is an oral inhibitor of mutated IDH1 that has been designed to bind and inhibit mutated IDH1 to reduce hydroxyglutarate levels and restore cellular differentiation of myeloid cells, says the manufacturer, Rigel.
About half of all patients with AML have relapse after treatment and remission, and about 10%-40% have refractory cases and do not achieve remission even after intensive treatment, the company noted.
“Given the limited treatment options for adult patients with mIDH1 R/R AML, who typically have a poor prognosis, olutasidenib may provide an effective new treatment option with a well-characterized safety profile,” Jorges Cortes, MD, director of the Georgia Cancer Center, Augusta, commented in the company press release. He was an investigator on the phase 2 trial that led to the drug’s approval.
This was Study 2102-HEM-101 (NCT02719574), an open-label, single-arm, multicenter clinical trial that included 147 adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML with an IDH1 mutation confirmed using the Abbott assay.
Olutasidenib was given orally at 150 mg twice daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (performed in 16 patients [11%]). The median treatment duration was 4.7 months (range, 0.1-26 months).
The FDA noted that efficacy was established on the rate of complete remission (CR) plus complete remission with partial hematologic recovery (CRh), the duration of CR+CRh, and the rate of conversion from transfusion dependence to independence.
The CR+CRh rate was 35% (95% confidence interval, 27%-43%), including 32% CR and 2.7% CRh. The median time to CR+CRh was 1.9 months (range, 0.9-5.6 months), and the median duration of CR+CRh was 25.9 months (95% CI, 13.5 months to not reached).
Commenting on these results in the company statement, Dr. Cortes noted that among the patients who responded, more than 90% were experiencing incomplete remission. He added that the “25.9 months median duration of CR+CRh is a clinically meaningful improvement for AML patients and appears to be longer than currently available treatment options.”
The FDA also noted that among the 86 patients who were dependent on red blood cell (RBC) and/or platelet transfusions at baseline, 29 (34%) became independent of RBC and platelet transfusions during any 56-day postbaseline period.
Of the 61 patients who were independent of both RBC and platelet transfusions at baseline, 39 (64%) remained transfusion-independent during any 56-day post-baseline period.
The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) were nausea, fatigue/malaise, arthralgia, constipation, leukocytosis, dyspnea, fever, rash, mucositis, diarrhea, and transaminitis.
The prescribing information contains a boxed warning about the risk for differentiation syndrome, which can be fatal.
Differentiation syndrome is associated with rapid proliferation and differentiation of myeloid cells and may be life-threatening or fatal, the company explained. Symptoms may include leukocytosis, dyspnea, pulmonary infiltrates/pleuropericardial effusion, kidney injury, hypotension, fever, and weight gain.
In the trial, differentiation syndrome was observed in 16% of patients, with grade 3 or 4 occurring in 8% of patients treated and death in 1% of patients. It occurred as early as 1 day and up to 18 months after starting treatment.
In most cases, differentiation syndrome was manageable with dose interruption and corticosteroids, the company said. Of the 25 patients who experienced differentiation syndrome, 19 (76%) recovered after treatment or after dose interruption.
Further details are available in the full prescribing information.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the drug is approved for use in patients who have R/R AML with a susceptible isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test.
The FDA also approved the Abbott RealTime IDH1 Assay to select patients for treatment.
Olutasidenib is an oral inhibitor of mutated IDH1 that has been designed to bind and inhibit mutated IDH1 to reduce hydroxyglutarate levels and restore cellular differentiation of myeloid cells, says the manufacturer, Rigel.
About half of all patients with AML have relapse after treatment and remission, and about 10%-40% have refractory cases and do not achieve remission even after intensive treatment, the company noted.
“Given the limited treatment options for adult patients with mIDH1 R/R AML, who typically have a poor prognosis, olutasidenib may provide an effective new treatment option with a well-characterized safety profile,” Jorges Cortes, MD, director of the Georgia Cancer Center, Augusta, commented in the company press release. He was an investigator on the phase 2 trial that led to the drug’s approval.
This was Study 2102-HEM-101 (NCT02719574), an open-label, single-arm, multicenter clinical trial that included 147 adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML with an IDH1 mutation confirmed using the Abbott assay.
Olutasidenib was given orally at 150 mg twice daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (performed in 16 patients [11%]). The median treatment duration was 4.7 months (range, 0.1-26 months).
The FDA noted that efficacy was established on the rate of complete remission (CR) plus complete remission with partial hematologic recovery (CRh), the duration of CR+CRh, and the rate of conversion from transfusion dependence to independence.
The CR+CRh rate was 35% (95% confidence interval, 27%-43%), including 32% CR and 2.7% CRh. The median time to CR+CRh was 1.9 months (range, 0.9-5.6 months), and the median duration of CR+CRh was 25.9 months (95% CI, 13.5 months to not reached).
Commenting on these results in the company statement, Dr. Cortes noted that among the patients who responded, more than 90% were experiencing incomplete remission. He added that the “25.9 months median duration of CR+CRh is a clinically meaningful improvement for AML patients and appears to be longer than currently available treatment options.”
The FDA also noted that among the 86 patients who were dependent on red blood cell (RBC) and/or platelet transfusions at baseline, 29 (34%) became independent of RBC and platelet transfusions during any 56-day postbaseline period.
Of the 61 patients who were independent of both RBC and platelet transfusions at baseline, 39 (64%) remained transfusion-independent during any 56-day post-baseline period.
The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) were nausea, fatigue/malaise, arthralgia, constipation, leukocytosis, dyspnea, fever, rash, mucositis, diarrhea, and transaminitis.
The prescribing information contains a boxed warning about the risk for differentiation syndrome, which can be fatal.
Differentiation syndrome is associated with rapid proliferation and differentiation of myeloid cells and may be life-threatening or fatal, the company explained. Symptoms may include leukocytosis, dyspnea, pulmonary infiltrates/pleuropericardial effusion, kidney injury, hypotension, fever, and weight gain.
In the trial, differentiation syndrome was observed in 16% of patients, with grade 3 or 4 occurring in 8% of patients treated and death in 1% of patients. It occurred as early as 1 day and up to 18 months after starting treatment.
In most cases, differentiation syndrome was manageable with dose interruption and corticosteroids, the company said. Of the 25 patients who experienced differentiation syndrome, 19 (76%) recovered after treatment or after dose interruption.
Further details are available in the full prescribing information.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women docs: How your next job contract can reflect your real goals
Rebecca Chester, MD, an Arizona-based interventional cardiologist, recently left her position in a private practice and started employment at a hospital system.
“When I was negotiating my previous contract with the private practice, I found that navigating contracts from the standpoint of a woman still in childbearing years was a little disappointing and challenging,” Dr. Chester told this news organization.
“I wanted to have more children and hired a lawyer recommended by a male colleague to help me not only understand the contract but also negotiate time off and maternity leave, but the lawyer discouraged me from advocating for maternity leave, feeling that it might stigmatize me and prevent me from getting a job,” she says.
He also didn’t explain very much. “He just said it falls under ‘disability leave’ and left it at that.”
Fortunately, Dr. Chester had a good experience with the group. “As things turned out, I did have a child later that year, and they treated me well – I actually got time off – and they didn’t make me take extra call. But it might have turned out very differently because I didn’t know what I was getting into. If I hadn’t worked for such a conscientious group, I might have been in a much tougher situation.”
Since then, Dr. Chester has spoken to female colleagues who received “more support from their legal advisors regarding maternity leave.” She suggests turning to female physicians for recommendations to a lawyer.
Although the central components of a contract (for example, noncompete covenants, malpractice “tail” coverage, bonus structure, vacation time, disability, and call) are relevant to physicians of all genders, the needs of women and men are often different.
Dennis Hursh, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, told this news organization that women physicians have “several issues that need special attention when negotiating their physician employment agreements.”
It starts with the interview
“Women have to be sensitive to the interviewer’s casual ‘let’s-get-to-know-each-other’ types of questions that may seem natural but really are unlawful to bring into an employment interview,” said Mr. Hursh.
He warned women to beware of questions such as “Are you married? Do you have kids? Are you planning to start a family?” These may be friendly chit-chat for male interviewees but there may be other agendas when asked to a prospective female employee.
Many of Mr. Hursh’s female clients have been asked this type of question, which “should be regarded as a ‘red flag.’ Yes, it may be an innocent, well-intentioned ice-breaker, but it’s actually unlawful to bring that up in an employment setting and, according to the Equal Opportunity Commission, can be seen as a form of discrimination.” He advises female physicians not to engage with the question and simply to refocus the discussion.
Know your worth and go for it
Medscape’s Physician Compensation surveys have consistently found discrepancies in earnings between male and female physicians, both in primary care and in specialties. In 2022, male primary care physicians earned 23% more than their female counterparts, whereas male specialists earned 31% more.
One reason may be that women tend to be more timid about negotiating for better compensation packages. Amanda Hill of Hill Health Law, a health care practice based in Austin, Tex., told this news organization that in her experience one of the most “overarching” features of female physicians is “that they either don’t know what they’re worth or they undersell themselves.”
In contrast to men, “many women are afraid of coming across as greedy or crass, or even demanding or bossy. But it’s a misperception that if you ask for more money, your future employer will hate you or won’t hire you,” said Ms. Hill.
Ms. Hill and Mr. Hursh encourage physicians to find out what they’re worth, which varies by region and specialty, by consulting benchmarks provided by companies such as Medical Group Management Association.
Jon Appino, MBA, principal and founder of Contract Diagnostics, a Kansas City–based consulting company that specializes in physician employment contract reviews, told this news organization that it’s important to look beyond the salary at other aspects of the position. For example, some figures “don’t take into account how much call a physician is taking. You may know what the average ob.gyn. is making, but an ob.gyn. may be working 3 days a week, while another one is working 6 days a week, one may be on call 15 times per month and another may be on call 15 times a quarter.” Other components of compensation include relative value unit (RVU) thresholds and bonuses.
Once you have that information, “don’t be intimidated, even if you’re sitting in front of several executives who are savvy about negotiations, and don’t worry about coming across as ‘high-maintenance’ or ‘all about money,’ ” Mr. Appino says. Proceed with confidence, knowing your worth and pursuing it.
Part-time vs. full-time
Mr. Appino has seen “more female than male physicians who want to work less than full-time. So it’s important to clarify whether that’s a possibility now or in the future and to understand the implications of working part-time.”
He explained that a full-time employee typically puts in a 40-hour work week, which translates into 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), or one unit of work. “For example, if a person wants to work 0.8 FTEs – 4 days a week – is vacation time pro-rated? At what point is there a medical insurance fall-off or a higher monthly premium?”
In medical settings, FTEs may be tied to different metrics rather than the number of weekly hours – for example, for a hospitalist, it might be a certain number of shifts and might also vary by specialty. And it affects the call schedule too. “Call is hard to pro-rate. Many hospital bylaws mandate that call be divided equally, but if one surgeon is working 1.0 FTEs and another is working 0.8 FTEs, how does that call schedule get divided?”
Maternity leave: A tricky question
Many attorneys counsel against raising the question out of fear of scaring away potential employers.
“On the one hand, it is and should be absolutely reasonable to ask about the maternity leave policy or even negotiate for paid leave or additional leave, but it also highlights that you’re planning to have a baby and be out for months,” said Ms. Hill.
“And as much as we want people to be fair and reasonable, on the side of the employer, bias still very much exists, especially in a situation where revenue is based on group numbers. So suddenly, the employer thinks up some ‘nondiscriminatory’ reason why that person isn’t a great fit for the organization.”
Andrew Knoll, MD, JD, a former hospitalist who is now a partner with Cohen Compagni Beckman Appler & Knoll PLLC in Syracuse, N.Y., said that maternity leave is “rare” in an employment agreement, except sometimes in small private practice groups, because it often falls under the purview of “disability leave,” and “from a legal perspective, it’s no different than any other type of disability leave.”
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which applies if a group is large enough, allows employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave, during which time their job is protected and their benefits maintained. And some states require employers to offer paid family leave.
“During this time, the woman can take time off – albeit without pay sometimes – to bond with the baby,” Dr. Knoll says. “Since there are statutory laws that protect the employee’s job, offering specific paid maternity leave is very unlikely.”
Ms. Hill advises carefully examining the employer’s comprehensive benefits plan to ascertain if paid maternity leave is included in the benefits. “But unless you’re currently pregnant and want to start off the relationship with true transparency – ‘I’m due in April and curious how we can handle that if you hire me now’ – I would keep the family planning questions to yourself before you get the job.”
Mr. Hursh, author of “The Final Hurdle: A Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement” (Charleston, S.C.: Advantage, 2012), has a different perspective. “I think all women, no matter how old they are, should ask about maternity leave, whether or not they’re planning a family,” he said.
“The employer may say, ‘We treat maternity leave like any other disability; our policy is such-and-such.’ If they cite an unacceptable policy, it’s a red flag about how they treat women, and should give a woman pause before accepting a position at that organization. Even if your rights are protected under the law and the organization’s policy is violating the law, no one wants to go to battle with HR or to have to go to court.”
Do you want partnership?
Not all female physicians entering a private practice want to advance to becoming partners. Many who are balancing family and work commitments “would prefer to just go into the office, perform their clinical responsibilities, go home, and be done” without the extra headaches, tasks, and time involved with business leadership, says Mr. Appino.
Some private practices have different contracts for those on partnership vs. nonpartnership tracks, so “you should ascertain this information and make sure it’s not automatically assumed that you would like to be on a partnership track,” says Mr. Appino.
On the other hand, you may want to become a partner. “I always suggest asking about the possibility of obtaining a leadership position in an organization or becoming an owner in a private practice,” says Mr. Hursh. “You may be told, ‘We’ve never had a woman in leadership before.’ This might be innocent if you’re the first woman hired, but it might be a red flag as to how women are regarded.” Either way, it’s important to have the information and know what your options are.
The impact of shift schedule
Mr. Hursh advises drilling down into the specifics of the schedule if you’re considering becoming a hospitalist. “Does a ‘week-on/week-off’ shift schedule assume you’ll be taking your vacation time or completing your CME requirements during the week off? This is important for all physicians, but especially for women who might want to use their weeks off to attend to children and family.”
Moreover, “there should be limits on shifts. You shouldn’t have a full day shift followed by a night shift. And there should be a limit on the number of shifts you work without time off. Twelve would be a brutal schedule. Seven is a reasonable amount. Make sure this is in writing and that the contract protects you. Don’t allow the employer to say, ‘We expect you to do the work we assign’ and leave it vague.”
Often, hospitalists will receive an annual salary under the assumption that a certain minimum number of shifts will be completed, but there is no maximum. “It’s important that the salary includes the minimum number of shifts, but that a compensation structure is created so that additional shifts receive additional compensation,” Mr. Hursh said.
Removing the ‘golden handcuffs’
Ms. Hill observes that there are some “really terrible contracts out there, which physicians – especially women – often feel pressured into signing.” They’re told, “This is our standard contract. You won’t find anything better.” Or, “Don’t worry about the small print and legalese.” The physician “gets scared or is artificially reassured, signs an overwhelmingly unfair contract, and then feels stuck.”
Being stuck in a bad contract “is debilitating and adds to burnout, feeling of depression, and the sense that there is no recourse and nowhere to go, especially if your family depends on you,” Ms. Hill said.
“More women than men feel hamstrung or are resigned to being harassed – which is not uncommon in the medical setting, especially in surgical specialties – or just accept poor treatment,” Ms. Hill added. Yes, you can “fight the system and go to HR, but fighting the system is very hard.”
She urges women “not to feel stuck or imprisoned by the ‘golden handcuffs’ but to consult a good lawyer, even if you have to break the contract.” Be aware of the reasons for your unhappiness and bring them to your lawyer – perhaps the system has engaged in fraud, perhaps there has been sexual or racial harassment, perhaps the organization hasn’t followed its own compliance policies.
Dr. Chester consulted Ms. Hill before signing the contract for her current position. “I wanted someone who could give me personalized advice, not only generic advice, and who understood my needs as a woman.”
Ms. Hill helped her to understand “what was and wasn’t fair and reasonable, what changes I could request based on my goals and whether they were realistic, and how to pick my battles. For example, I tried to negotiate tail coverage up front in my previous job but was unsuccessful. The new employer paid tail for me, both from my previous employment and for my current employment.”
Dr. Chester advises other female physicians “never to sign anything without having a lawyer review it and to make sure that the lawyer is sensitive to their specific needs.”
It can be hard to be a female physician. Having the right knowledge and ammunition and knowing how to negotiate well paves the way for success and thriving in an often male-dominated market.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rebecca Chester, MD, an Arizona-based interventional cardiologist, recently left her position in a private practice and started employment at a hospital system.
“When I was negotiating my previous contract with the private practice, I found that navigating contracts from the standpoint of a woman still in childbearing years was a little disappointing and challenging,” Dr. Chester told this news organization.
“I wanted to have more children and hired a lawyer recommended by a male colleague to help me not only understand the contract but also negotiate time off and maternity leave, but the lawyer discouraged me from advocating for maternity leave, feeling that it might stigmatize me and prevent me from getting a job,” she says.
He also didn’t explain very much. “He just said it falls under ‘disability leave’ and left it at that.”
Fortunately, Dr. Chester had a good experience with the group. “As things turned out, I did have a child later that year, and they treated me well – I actually got time off – and they didn’t make me take extra call. But it might have turned out very differently because I didn’t know what I was getting into. If I hadn’t worked for such a conscientious group, I might have been in a much tougher situation.”
Since then, Dr. Chester has spoken to female colleagues who received “more support from their legal advisors regarding maternity leave.” She suggests turning to female physicians for recommendations to a lawyer.
Although the central components of a contract (for example, noncompete covenants, malpractice “tail” coverage, bonus structure, vacation time, disability, and call) are relevant to physicians of all genders, the needs of women and men are often different.
Dennis Hursh, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, told this news organization that women physicians have “several issues that need special attention when negotiating their physician employment agreements.”
It starts with the interview
“Women have to be sensitive to the interviewer’s casual ‘let’s-get-to-know-each-other’ types of questions that may seem natural but really are unlawful to bring into an employment interview,” said Mr. Hursh.
He warned women to beware of questions such as “Are you married? Do you have kids? Are you planning to start a family?” These may be friendly chit-chat for male interviewees but there may be other agendas when asked to a prospective female employee.
Many of Mr. Hursh’s female clients have been asked this type of question, which “should be regarded as a ‘red flag.’ Yes, it may be an innocent, well-intentioned ice-breaker, but it’s actually unlawful to bring that up in an employment setting and, according to the Equal Opportunity Commission, can be seen as a form of discrimination.” He advises female physicians not to engage with the question and simply to refocus the discussion.
Know your worth and go for it
Medscape’s Physician Compensation surveys have consistently found discrepancies in earnings between male and female physicians, both in primary care and in specialties. In 2022, male primary care physicians earned 23% more than their female counterparts, whereas male specialists earned 31% more.
One reason may be that women tend to be more timid about negotiating for better compensation packages. Amanda Hill of Hill Health Law, a health care practice based in Austin, Tex., told this news organization that in her experience one of the most “overarching” features of female physicians is “that they either don’t know what they’re worth or they undersell themselves.”
In contrast to men, “many women are afraid of coming across as greedy or crass, or even demanding or bossy. But it’s a misperception that if you ask for more money, your future employer will hate you or won’t hire you,” said Ms. Hill.
Ms. Hill and Mr. Hursh encourage physicians to find out what they’re worth, which varies by region and specialty, by consulting benchmarks provided by companies such as Medical Group Management Association.
Jon Appino, MBA, principal and founder of Contract Diagnostics, a Kansas City–based consulting company that specializes in physician employment contract reviews, told this news organization that it’s important to look beyond the salary at other aspects of the position. For example, some figures “don’t take into account how much call a physician is taking. You may know what the average ob.gyn. is making, but an ob.gyn. may be working 3 days a week, while another one is working 6 days a week, one may be on call 15 times per month and another may be on call 15 times a quarter.” Other components of compensation include relative value unit (RVU) thresholds and bonuses.
Once you have that information, “don’t be intimidated, even if you’re sitting in front of several executives who are savvy about negotiations, and don’t worry about coming across as ‘high-maintenance’ or ‘all about money,’ ” Mr. Appino says. Proceed with confidence, knowing your worth and pursuing it.
Part-time vs. full-time
Mr. Appino has seen “more female than male physicians who want to work less than full-time. So it’s important to clarify whether that’s a possibility now or in the future and to understand the implications of working part-time.”
He explained that a full-time employee typically puts in a 40-hour work week, which translates into 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), or one unit of work. “For example, if a person wants to work 0.8 FTEs – 4 days a week – is vacation time pro-rated? At what point is there a medical insurance fall-off or a higher monthly premium?”
In medical settings, FTEs may be tied to different metrics rather than the number of weekly hours – for example, for a hospitalist, it might be a certain number of shifts and might also vary by specialty. And it affects the call schedule too. “Call is hard to pro-rate. Many hospital bylaws mandate that call be divided equally, but if one surgeon is working 1.0 FTEs and another is working 0.8 FTEs, how does that call schedule get divided?”
Maternity leave: A tricky question
Many attorneys counsel against raising the question out of fear of scaring away potential employers.
“On the one hand, it is and should be absolutely reasonable to ask about the maternity leave policy or even negotiate for paid leave or additional leave, but it also highlights that you’re planning to have a baby and be out for months,” said Ms. Hill.
“And as much as we want people to be fair and reasonable, on the side of the employer, bias still very much exists, especially in a situation where revenue is based on group numbers. So suddenly, the employer thinks up some ‘nondiscriminatory’ reason why that person isn’t a great fit for the organization.”
Andrew Knoll, MD, JD, a former hospitalist who is now a partner with Cohen Compagni Beckman Appler & Knoll PLLC in Syracuse, N.Y., said that maternity leave is “rare” in an employment agreement, except sometimes in small private practice groups, because it often falls under the purview of “disability leave,” and “from a legal perspective, it’s no different than any other type of disability leave.”
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which applies if a group is large enough, allows employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave, during which time their job is protected and their benefits maintained. And some states require employers to offer paid family leave.
“During this time, the woman can take time off – albeit without pay sometimes – to bond with the baby,” Dr. Knoll says. “Since there are statutory laws that protect the employee’s job, offering specific paid maternity leave is very unlikely.”
Ms. Hill advises carefully examining the employer’s comprehensive benefits plan to ascertain if paid maternity leave is included in the benefits. “But unless you’re currently pregnant and want to start off the relationship with true transparency – ‘I’m due in April and curious how we can handle that if you hire me now’ – I would keep the family planning questions to yourself before you get the job.”
Mr. Hursh, author of “The Final Hurdle: A Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement” (Charleston, S.C.: Advantage, 2012), has a different perspective. “I think all women, no matter how old they are, should ask about maternity leave, whether or not they’re planning a family,” he said.
“The employer may say, ‘We treat maternity leave like any other disability; our policy is such-and-such.’ If they cite an unacceptable policy, it’s a red flag about how they treat women, and should give a woman pause before accepting a position at that organization. Even if your rights are protected under the law and the organization’s policy is violating the law, no one wants to go to battle with HR or to have to go to court.”
Do you want partnership?
Not all female physicians entering a private practice want to advance to becoming partners. Many who are balancing family and work commitments “would prefer to just go into the office, perform their clinical responsibilities, go home, and be done” without the extra headaches, tasks, and time involved with business leadership, says Mr. Appino.
Some private practices have different contracts for those on partnership vs. nonpartnership tracks, so “you should ascertain this information and make sure it’s not automatically assumed that you would like to be on a partnership track,” says Mr. Appino.
On the other hand, you may want to become a partner. “I always suggest asking about the possibility of obtaining a leadership position in an organization or becoming an owner in a private practice,” says Mr. Hursh. “You may be told, ‘We’ve never had a woman in leadership before.’ This might be innocent if you’re the first woman hired, but it might be a red flag as to how women are regarded.” Either way, it’s important to have the information and know what your options are.
The impact of shift schedule
Mr. Hursh advises drilling down into the specifics of the schedule if you’re considering becoming a hospitalist. “Does a ‘week-on/week-off’ shift schedule assume you’ll be taking your vacation time or completing your CME requirements during the week off? This is important for all physicians, but especially for women who might want to use their weeks off to attend to children and family.”
Moreover, “there should be limits on shifts. You shouldn’t have a full day shift followed by a night shift. And there should be a limit on the number of shifts you work without time off. Twelve would be a brutal schedule. Seven is a reasonable amount. Make sure this is in writing and that the contract protects you. Don’t allow the employer to say, ‘We expect you to do the work we assign’ and leave it vague.”
Often, hospitalists will receive an annual salary under the assumption that a certain minimum number of shifts will be completed, but there is no maximum. “It’s important that the salary includes the minimum number of shifts, but that a compensation structure is created so that additional shifts receive additional compensation,” Mr. Hursh said.
Removing the ‘golden handcuffs’
Ms. Hill observes that there are some “really terrible contracts out there, which physicians – especially women – often feel pressured into signing.” They’re told, “This is our standard contract. You won’t find anything better.” Or, “Don’t worry about the small print and legalese.” The physician “gets scared or is artificially reassured, signs an overwhelmingly unfair contract, and then feels stuck.”
Being stuck in a bad contract “is debilitating and adds to burnout, feeling of depression, and the sense that there is no recourse and nowhere to go, especially if your family depends on you,” Ms. Hill said.
“More women than men feel hamstrung or are resigned to being harassed – which is not uncommon in the medical setting, especially in surgical specialties – or just accept poor treatment,” Ms. Hill added. Yes, you can “fight the system and go to HR, but fighting the system is very hard.”
She urges women “not to feel stuck or imprisoned by the ‘golden handcuffs’ but to consult a good lawyer, even if you have to break the contract.” Be aware of the reasons for your unhappiness and bring them to your lawyer – perhaps the system has engaged in fraud, perhaps there has been sexual or racial harassment, perhaps the organization hasn’t followed its own compliance policies.
Dr. Chester consulted Ms. Hill before signing the contract for her current position. “I wanted someone who could give me personalized advice, not only generic advice, and who understood my needs as a woman.”
Ms. Hill helped her to understand “what was and wasn’t fair and reasonable, what changes I could request based on my goals and whether they were realistic, and how to pick my battles. For example, I tried to negotiate tail coverage up front in my previous job but was unsuccessful. The new employer paid tail for me, both from my previous employment and for my current employment.”
Dr. Chester advises other female physicians “never to sign anything without having a lawyer review it and to make sure that the lawyer is sensitive to their specific needs.”
It can be hard to be a female physician. Having the right knowledge and ammunition and knowing how to negotiate well paves the way for success and thriving in an often male-dominated market.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rebecca Chester, MD, an Arizona-based interventional cardiologist, recently left her position in a private practice and started employment at a hospital system.
“When I was negotiating my previous contract with the private practice, I found that navigating contracts from the standpoint of a woman still in childbearing years was a little disappointing and challenging,” Dr. Chester told this news organization.
“I wanted to have more children and hired a lawyer recommended by a male colleague to help me not only understand the contract but also negotiate time off and maternity leave, but the lawyer discouraged me from advocating for maternity leave, feeling that it might stigmatize me and prevent me from getting a job,” she says.
He also didn’t explain very much. “He just said it falls under ‘disability leave’ and left it at that.”
Fortunately, Dr. Chester had a good experience with the group. “As things turned out, I did have a child later that year, and they treated me well – I actually got time off – and they didn’t make me take extra call. But it might have turned out very differently because I didn’t know what I was getting into. If I hadn’t worked for such a conscientious group, I might have been in a much tougher situation.”
Since then, Dr. Chester has spoken to female colleagues who received “more support from their legal advisors regarding maternity leave.” She suggests turning to female physicians for recommendations to a lawyer.
Although the central components of a contract (for example, noncompete covenants, malpractice “tail” coverage, bonus structure, vacation time, disability, and call) are relevant to physicians of all genders, the needs of women and men are often different.
Dennis Hursh, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, told this news organization that women physicians have “several issues that need special attention when negotiating their physician employment agreements.”
It starts with the interview
“Women have to be sensitive to the interviewer’s casual ‘let’s-get-to-know-each-other’ types of questions that may seem natural but really are unlawful to bring into an employment interview,” said Mr. Hursh.
He warned women to beware of questions such as “Are you married? Do you have kids? Are you planning to start a family?” These may be friendly chit-chat for male interviewees but there may be other agendas when asked to a prospective female employee.
Many of Mr. Hursh’s female clients have been asked this type of question, which “should be regarded as a ‘red flag.’ Yes, it may be an innocent, well-intentioned ice-breaker, but it’s actually unlawful to bring that up in an employment setting and, according to the Equal Opportunity Commission, can be seen as a form of discrimination.” He advises female physicians not to engage with the question and simply to refocus the discussion.
Know your worth and go for it
Medscape’s Physician Compensation surveys have consistently found discrepancies in earnings between male and female physicians, both in primary care and in specialties. In 2022, male primary care physicians earned 23% more than their female counterparts, whereas male specialists earned 31% more.
One reason may be that women tend to be more timid about negotiating for better compensation packages. Amanda Hill of Hill Health Law, a health care practice based in Austin, Tex., told this news organization that in her experience one of the most “overarching” features of female physicians is “that they either don’t know what they’re worth or they undersell themselves.”
In contrast to men, “many women are afraid of coming across as greedy or crass, or even demanding or bossy. But it’s a misperception that if you ask for more money, your future employer will hate you or won’t hire you,” said Ms. Hill.
Ms. Hill and Mr. Hursh encourage physicians to find out what they’re worth, which varies by region and specialty, by consulting benchmarks provided by companies such as Medical Group Management Association.
Jon Appino, MBA, principal and founder of Contract Diagnostics, a Kansas City–based consulting company that specializes in physician employment contract reviews, told this news organization that it’s important to look beyond the salary at other aspects of the position. For example, some figures “don’t take into account how much call a physician is taking. You may know what the average ob.gyn. is making, but an ob.gyn. may be working 3 days a week, while another one is working 6 days a week, one may be on call 15 times per month and another may be on call 15 times a quarter.” Other components of compensation include relative value unit (RVU) thresholds and bonuses.
Once you have that information, “don’t be intimidated, even if you’re sitting in front of several executives who are savvy about negotiations, and don’t worry about coming across as ‘high-maintenance’ or ‘all about money,’ ” Mr. Appino says. Proceed with confidence, knowing your worth and pursuing it.
Part-time vs. full-time
Mr. Appino has seen “more female than male physicians who want to work less than full-time. So it’s important to clarify whether that’s a possibility now or in the future and to understand the implications of working part-time.”
He explained that a full-time employee typically puts in a 40-hour work week, which translates into 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), or one unit of work. “For example, if a person wants to work 0.8 FTEs – 4 days a week – is vacation time pro-rated? At what point is there a medical insurance fall-off or a higher monthly premium?”
In medical settings, FTEs may be tied to different metrics rather than the number of weekly hours – for example, for a hospitalist, it might be a certain number of shifts and might also vary by specialty. And it affects the call schedule too. “Call is hard to pro-rate. Many hospital bylaws mandate that call be divided equally, but if one surgeon is working 1.0 FTEs and another is working 0.8 FTEs, how does that call schedule get divided?”
Maternity leave: A tricky question
Many attorneys counsel against raising the question out of fear of scaring away potential employers.
“On the one hand, it is and should be absolutely reasonable to ask about the maternity leave policy or even negotiate for paid leave or additional leave, but it also highlights that you’re planning to have a baby and be out for months,” said Ms. Hill.
“And as much as we want people to be fair and reasonable, on the side of the employer, bias still very much exists, especially in a situation where revenue is based on group numbers. So suddenly, the employer thinks up some ‘nondiscriminatory’ reason why that person isn’t a great fit for the organization.”
Andrew Knoll, MD, JD, a former hospitalist who is now a partner with Cohen Compagni Beckman Appler & Knoll PLLC in Syracuse, N.Y., said that maternity leave is “rare” in an employment agreement, except sometimes in small private practice groups, because it often falls under the purview of “disability leave,” and “from a legal perspective, it’s no different than any other type of disability leave.”
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which applies if a group is large enough, allows employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave, during which time their job is protected and their benefits maintained. And some states require employers to offer paid family leave.
“During this time, the woman can take time off – albeit without pay sometimes – to bond with the baby,” Dr. Knoll says. “Since there are statutory laws that protect the employee’s job, offering specific paid maternity leave is very unlikely.”
Ms. Hill advises carefully examining the employer’s comprehensive benefits plan to ascertain if paid maternity leave is included in the benefits. “But unless you’re currently pregnant and want to start off the relationship with true transparency – ‘I’m due in April and curious how we can handle that if you hire me now’ – I would keep the family planning questions to yourself before you get the job.”
Mr. Hursh, author of “The Final Hurdle: A Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement” (Charleston, S.C.: Advantage, 2012), has a different perspective. “I think all women, no matter how old they are, should ask about maternity leave, whether or not they’re planning a family,” he said.
“The employer may say, ‘We treat maternity leave like any other disability; our policy is such-and-such.’ If they cite an unacceptable policy, it’s a red flag about how they treat women, and should give a woman pause before accepting a position at that organization. Even if your rights are protected under the law and the organization’s policy is violating the law, no one wants to go to battle with HR or to have to go to court.”
Do you want partnership?
Not all female physicians entering a private practice want to advance to becoming partners. Many who are balancing family and work commitments “would prefer to just go into the office, perform their clinical responsibilities, go home, and be done” without the extra headaches, tasks, and time involved with business leadership, says Mr. Appino.
Some private practices have different contracts for those on partnership vs. nonpartnership tracks, so “you should ascertain this information and make sure it’s not automatically assumed that you would like to be on a partnership track,” says Mr. Appino.
On the other hand, you may want to become a partner. “I always suggest asking about the possibility of obtaining a leadership position in an organization or becoming an owner in a private practice,” says Mr. Hursh. “You may be told, ‘We’ve never had a woman in leadership before.’ This might be innocent if you’re the first woman hired, but it might be a red flag as to how women are regarded.” Either way, it’s important to have the information and know what your options are.
The impact of shift schedule
Mr. Hursh advises drilling down into the specifics of the schedule if you’re considering becoming a hospitalist. “Does a ‘week-on/week-off’ shift schedule assume you’ll be taking your vacation time or completing your CME requirements during the week off? This is important for all physicians, but especially for women who might want to use their weeks off to attend to children and family.”
Moreover, “there should be limits on shifts. You shouldn’t have a full day shift followed by a night shift. And there should be a limit on the number of shifts you work without time off. Twelve would be a brutal schedule. Seven is a reasonable amount. Make sure this is in writing and that the contract protects you. Don’t allow the employer to say, ‘We expect you to do the work we assign’ and leave it vague.”
Often, hospitalists will receive an annual salary under the assumption that a certain minimum number of shifts will be completed, but there is no maximum. “It’s important that the salary includes the minimum number of shifts, but that a compensation structure is created so that additional shifts receive additional compensation,” Mr. Hursh said.
Removing the ‘golden handcuffs’
Ms. Hill observes that there are some “really terrible contracts out there, which physicians – especially women – often feel pressured into signing.” They’re told, “This is our standard contract. You won’t find anything better.” Or, “Don’t worry about the small print and legalese.” The physician “gets scared or is artificially reassured, signs an overwhelmingly unfair contract, and then feels stuck.”
Being stuck in a bad contract “is debilitating and adds to burnout, feeling of depression, and the sense that there is no recourse and nowhere to go, especially if your family depends on you,” Ms. Hill said.
“More women than men feel hamstrung or are resigned to being harassed – which is not uncommon in the medical setting, especially in surgical specialties – or just accept poor treatment,” Ms. Hill added. Yes, you can “fight the system and go to HR, but fighting the system is very hard.”
She urges women “not to feel stuck or imprisoned by the ‘golden handcuffs’ but to consult a good lawyer, even if you have to break the contract.” Be aware of the reasons for your unhappiness and bring them to your lawyer – perhaps the system has engaged in fraud, perhaps there has been sexual or racial harassment, perhaps the organization hasn’t followed its own compliance policies.
Dr. Chester consulted Ms. Hill before signing the contract for her current position. “I wanted someone who could give me personalized advice, not only generic advice, and who understood my needs as a woman.”
Ms. Hill helped her to understand “what was and wasn’t fair and reasonable, what changes I could request based on my goals and whether they were realistic, and how to pick my battles. For example, I tried to negotiate tail coverage up front in my previous job but was unsuccessful. The new employer paid tail for me, both from my previous employment and for my current employment.”
Dr. Chester advises other female physicians “never to sign anything without having a lawyer review it and to make sure that the lawyer is sensitive to their specific needs.”
It can be hard to be a female physician. Having the right knowledge and ammunition and knowing how to negotiate well paves the way for success and thriving in an often male-dominated market.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pandemic caused treatment delay for half of patients with CTCL, study finds
showed. However, among patients with CTCL diagnosed with COVID-19 during that time, no cases were acquired from outpatient visits.
“Delays in therapy for patients with cutaneous lymphomas should likely be avoided,” two of the study authors, Larisa J. Geskin, MD, of the department of dermatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Bradley D. Kwinta, a medical student at Columbia University, told this news organization in a combined response via email.
“Continuing treatment and maintenance therapy appears critical to avoiding disease progression, highlighting the importance of maintenance therapy in CTCL,” they said. “These patients can be safely treated according to established treatment protocols while practicing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment without significantly increasing their risk of COVID-19 infection.”
The United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer developed emergency guidelines for the management of patients with cutaneous lymphomas during the pandemic to ensure patient safety, and the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas created an International Cutaneous Lymphomas Pandemic Section to collect data to assess the impact of these guidelines.
“Using this data, we can determine if these measures were effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, what the impact was of maintenance therapy, and how delays in treatment affected disease outcomes in CTCL patients,” the authors and their colleagues wrote in the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
They retrospectively analyzed data from the electronic medical records of 149 patients with CTCL who were being managed at one of nine international academic medical centers in seven countries from March to October 2020. Slightly more than half (56%) were male, 70% were White, 18% were Black, 52% had stage IA-IIA disease, and 19% acquired COVID-19 during the study period.
Of the 149 patients, 79 (53%) experienced a mean treatment delay of 3.2 months (range, 10 days to 10 months). After adjusting for age, race, biological sex, COVID-19 status, and disease stage, treatment delay was associated with a significant risk of disease relapse or progression across all stages (odds ratio, 5.00; P < .001). Specifically, for each additional month that a patient experienced treatment delay, the odds of disease progression increased by 37% (OR, 1.37; P < .001).
A total of 28 patients with CTCL (19%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, but none were acquired from outpatient office visits. Patients who contracted COVID-19 did not have a statistically significant increase in odds of disease progression, compared with COVID-negative patients (OR, 0.41; P = .07).
According to Dr. Geskin, who is also director of the Comprehensive Skin Cancer Center in the division of cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at Columbia, and Mr. Kwinta, no clinical trials exist to inform maintenance protocols in patients with cutaneous lymphomas. “There are also no randomized and controlled observational studies that demonstrate the impact that therapy delay may have on disease outcomes,” they said in the email. “In fact, the need for maintenance therapy for CTCL is often debated. Our findings demonstrate the importance of continuing treatment and the use of maintenance therapy in avoiding disease progression in these incurable lymphomas.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective observational design. “Therefore, we cannot establish a definitive causal link between treatment delay and disease progression,” they said. “Our cohort of patients were on various and often multiple therapies, making it hard to extrapolate our data to discern which maintenance therapies were most effective in preventing disease progression.”
In addition, their data only includes patients from March to October 2020, “before the discovery of new variants and the development of COVID-19 vaccines,” they added. “Additional studies would be required to draw conclusions on how COVID-19 vaccines may affect patients with CTCL, including outcomes in the setting of new variants.”
The authors reported having no financial disclosures.
showed. However, among patients with CTCL diagnosed with COVID-19 during that time, no cases were acquired from outpatient visits.
“Delays in therapy for patients with cutaneous lymphomas should likely be avoided,” two of the study authors, Larisa J. Geskin, MD, of the department of dermatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Bradley D. Kwinta, a medical student at Columbia University, told this news organization in a combined response via email.
“Continuing treatment and maintenance therapy appears critical to avoiding disease progression, highlighting the importance of maintenance therapy in CTCL,” they said. “These patients can be safely treated according to established treatment protocols while practicing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment without significantly increasing their risk of COVID-19 infection.”
The United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer developed emergency guidelines for the management of patients with cutaneous lymphomas during the pandemic to ensure patient safety, and the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas created an International Cutaneous Lymphomas Pandemic Section to collect data to assess the impact of these guidelines.
“Using this data, we can determine if these measures were effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, what the impact was of maintenance therapy, and how delays in treatment affected disease outcomes in CTCL patients,” the authors and their colleagues wrote in the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
They retrospectively analyzed data from the electronic medical records of 149 patients with CTCL who were being managed at one of nine international academic medical centers in seven countries from March to October 2020. Slightly more than half (56%) were male, 70% were White, 18% were Black, 52% had stage IA-IIA disease, and 19% acquired COVID-19 during the study period.
Of the 149 patients, 79 (53%) experienced a mean treatment delay of 3.2 months (range, 10 days to 10 months). After adjusting for age, race, biological sex, COVID-19 status, and disease stage, treatment delay was associated with a significant risk of disease relapse or progression across all stages (odds ratio, 5.00; P < .001). Specifically, for each additional month that a patient experienced treatment delay, the odds of disease progression increased by 37% (OR, 1.37; P < .001).
A total of 28 patients with CTCL (19%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, but none were acquired from outpatient office visits. Patients who contracted COVID-19 did not have a statistically significant increase in odds of disease progression, compared with COVID-negative patients (OR, 0.41; P = .07).
According to Dr. Geskin, who is also director of the Comprehensive Skin Cancer Center in the division of cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at Columbia, and Mr. Kwinta, no clinical trials exist to inform maintenance protocols in patients with cutaneous lymphomas. “There are also no randomized and controlled observational studies that demonstrate the impact that therapy delay may have on disease outcomes,” they said in the email. “In fact, the need for maintenance therapy for CTCL is often debated. Our findings demonstrate the importance of continuing treatment and the use of maintenance therapy in avoiding disease progression in these incurable lymphomas.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective observational design. “Therefore, we cannot establish a definitive causal link between treatment delay and disease progression,” they said. “Our cohort of patients were on various and often multiple therapies, making it hard to extrapolate our data to discern which maintenance therapies were most effective in preventing disease progression.”
In addition, their data only includes patients from March to October 2020, “before the discovery of new variants and the development of COVID-19 vaccines,” they added. “Additional studies would be required to draw conclusions on how COVID-19 vaccines may affect patients with CTCL, including outcomes in the setting of new variants.”
The authors reported having no financial disclosures.
showed. However, among patients with CTCL diagnosed with COVID-19 during that time, no cases were acquired from outpatient visits.
“Delays in therapy for patients with cutaneous lymphomas should likely be avoided,” two of the study authors, Larisa J. Geskin, MD, of the department of dermatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Bradley D. Kwinta, a medical student at Columbia University, told this news organization in a combined response via email.
“Continuing treatment and maintenance therapy appears critical to avoiding disease progression, highlighting the importance of maintenance therapy in CTCL,” they said. “These patients can be safely treated according to established treatment protocols while practicing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment without significantly increasing their risk of COVID-19 infection.”
The United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer developed emergency guidelines for the management of patients with cutaneous lymphomas during the pandemic to ensure patient safety, and the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas created an International Cutaneous Lymphomas Pandemic Section to collect data to assess the impact of these guidelines.
“Using this data, we can determine if these measures were effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, what the impact was of maintenance therapy, and how delays in treatment affected disease outcomes in CTCL patients,” the authors and their colleagues wrote in the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
They retrospectively analyzed data from the electronic medical records of 149 patients with CTCL who were being managed at one of nine international academic medical centers in seven countries from March to October 2020. Slightly more than half (56%) were male, 70% were White, 18% were Black, 52% had stage IA-IIA disease, and 19% acquired COVID-19 during the study period.
Of the 149 patients, 79 (53%) experienced a mean treatment delay of 3.2 months (range, 10 days to 10 months). After adjusting for age, race, biological sex, COVID-19 status, and disease stage, treatment delay was associated with a significant risk of disease relapse or progression across all stages (odds ratio, 5.00; P < .001). Specifically, for each additional month that a patient experienced treatment delay, the odds of disease progression increased by 37% (OR, 1.37; P < .001).
A total of 28 patients with CTCL (19%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, but none were acquired from outpatient office visits. Patients who contracted COVID-19 did not have a statistically significant increase in odds of disease progression, compared with COVID-negative patients (OR, 0.41; P = .07).
According to Dr. Geskin, who is also director of the Comprehensive Skin Cancer Center in the division of cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at Columbia, and Mr. Kwinta, no clinical trials exist to inform maintenance protocols in patients with cutaneous lymphomas. “There are also no randomized and controlled observational studies that demonstrate the impact that therapy delay may have on disease outcomes,” they said in the email. “In fact, the need for maintenance therapy for CTCL is often debated. Our findings demonstrate the importance of continuing treatment and the use of maintenance therapy in avoiding disease progression in these incurable lymphomas.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective observational design. “Therefore, we cannot establish a definitive causal link between treatment delay and disease progression,” they said. “Our cohort of patients were on various and often multiple therapies, making it hard to extrapolate our data to discern which maintenance therapies were most effective in preventing disease progression.”
In addition, their data only includes patients from March to October 2020, “before the discovery of new variants and the development of COVID-19 vaccines,” they added. “Additional studies would be required to draw conclusions on how COVID-19 vaccines may affect patients with CTCL, including outcomes in the setting of new variants.”
The authors reported having no financial disclosures.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
How blunt is too blunt for informed consent?
Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.
“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.
In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.
“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”
That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.
“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”
Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.
How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.
“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.
Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.
She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.
When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.
“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
Document, document, document!
To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.
“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”
It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.
In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).
“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
What happens when things go wrong?
If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.
“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”
Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.
Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.
“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”
To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.
“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”
For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.
Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.
“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”
In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.
“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.
“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.
In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.
“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”
That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.
“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”
Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.
How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.
“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.
Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.
She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.
When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.
“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
Document, document, document!
To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.
“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”
It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.
In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).
“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
What happens when things go wrong?
If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.
“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”
Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.
Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.
“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”
To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.
“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”
For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.
Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.
“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”
In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.
“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.
“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.
In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.
“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”
That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.
“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”
Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.
How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.
“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.
Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.
She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.
When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.
“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
Document, document, document!
To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.
“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”
It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.
In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).
“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
What happens when things go wrong?
If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.
“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”
Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.
Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.
“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”
To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.
“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”
For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.
Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.
“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”
In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.
“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Analysis of doctors’ EHR email finds infrequent but notable hostility
Among the emails, 43% were from patients; the remainder were mostly from other physicians or clinicians, or automated. The content of the messages wasn’t associated with doctor burnout, as the researchers had hypothesized. And only about 5% of the messages had negative sentiment.
But the researchers were struck by the hostility of that sentiment, displayed in messages like these that surely would be distressing for physicians to read:
“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in he**. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”
“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”
About 5% of emails had an overall negative sentiment, with high-frequency words like “cancel,” “pain,” or “problem.” Among patient messages, 3% were negative and contained words and expletives suggesting hatred, hostility, or violence.
“F***” was the most common expletive used by patients.
Researchers provided examples of profanity-laced messages, including one patient who said, “I am so upset that I was told the blood work would include the gender of the baby. I have been waiting 5 [days] to find it, and it wasn’t even fu**ing tested!!!! What a disappointment in your office and the bullsh** I was told. I will be switching plans because this is sh**!”
Researchers also noted some high-frequency words associated with violence, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill.”
“This is concerning, especially given documentation of patient-inflicted violence against physicians. Health systems should be proactive in ensuring that the in-basket does not become a venue for physician abuse and cyberbullying,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.
“Posting reminders in EHR patient portals to use kind language when sending messages, applying filters for expletives or threatening words, and creating frameworks for identifying patients who frequently send negative messages are potential strategies for mitigating this risk.”
Using a form of artificial intelligence technology called natural language processing (NLP), researchers at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed the characteristics of more than 1.4 million emails received by the university’s physicians, 43% of them from patients. They specifically looked at the volume of messages, word count, and overall sentiment.
Whereas other studies have examined the growing burden of EHR messaging for doctors, this type of email sentiment analysis could help in creating solutions. Researchers say that one such solution could involve applying filters for expletives or threatening words. It also could help identify fixable health system issues that make patients so angry, the researchers say.
Among the emails from physicians to physicians, just over half reported burnout, which correlated to the following phrases: “I am beginning to burn out and have one or more symptoms of burnout” and “I feel completely burned out [and] am at the point where I may need to seek help.”
On average, physicians who reported burnout received a greater volume of patient messages. The odds of burnout were significantly higher among Hispanic/Latinx physicians and females. Physicians with more than 15 years of clinical practice had markedly lower burnout.
Despite physicians now spending more time on EHR in-basket tasks than they did before the pandemic, the study found no significant associations between message characteristics and burnout.
Data for the cross-sectional study were collected from multiple specialties from April to September 2020. Physicians then completed a survey and assessed their burnout on a 5-point scale. Of the 609 physician responses, approximately 49% of participants were women, 56% were White, and 64% worked in outpatient settings. About 70% of the doctors had been in practice for 15 years or less.
The sentiment score was based on word content as well as the use of negation, punctuation, degree modifiers, all caps, emoticons, emojis, and acronyms. Positive patient messages were more likely to convey gratitude and thanks, along with casual expressions, such as “fyi” and “lol.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among the emails, 43% were from patients; the remainder were mostly from other physicians or clinicians, or automated. The content of the messages wasn’t associated with doctor burnout, as the researchers had hypothesized. And only about 5% of the messages had negative sentiment.
But the researchers were struck by the hostility of that sentiment, displayed in messages like these that surely would be distressing for physicians to read:
“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in he**. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”
“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”
About 5% of emails had an overall negative sentiment, with high-frequency words like “cancel,” “pain,” or “problem.” Among patient messages, 3% were negative and contained words and expletives suggesting hatred, hostility, or violence.
“F***” was the most common expletive used by patients.
Researchers provided examples of profanity-laced messages, including one patient who said, “I am so upset that I was told the blood work would include the gender of the baby. I have been waiting 5 [days] to find it, and it wasn’t even fu**ing tested!!!! What a disappointment in your office and the bullsh** I was told. I will be switching plans because this is sh**!”
Researchers also noted some high-frequency words associated with violence, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill.”
“This is concerning, especially given documentation of patient-inflicted violence against physicians. Health systems should be proactive in ensuring that the in-basket does not become a venue for physician abuse and cyberbullying,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.
“Posting reminders in EHR patient portals to use kind language when sending messages, applying filters for expletives or threatening words, and creating frameworks for identifying patients who frequently send negative messages are potential strategies for mitigating this risk.”
Using a form of artificial intelligence technology called natural language processing (NLP), researchers at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed the characteristics of more than 1.4 million emails received by the university’s physicians, 43% of them from patients. They specifically looked at the volume of messages, word count, and overall sentiment.
Whereas other studies have examined the growing burden of EHR messaging for doctors, this type of email sentiment analysis could help in creating solutions. Researchers say that one such solution could involve applying filters for expletives or threatening words. It also could help identify fixable health system issues that make patients so angry, the researchers say.
Among the emails from physicians to physicians, just over half reported burnout, which correlated to the following phrases: “I am beginning to burn out and have one or more symptoms of burnout” and “I feel completely burned out [and] am at the point where I may need to seek help.”
On average, physicians who reported burnout received a greater volume of patient messages. The odds of burnout were significantly higher among Hispanic/Latinx physicians and females. Physicians with more than 15 years of clinical practice had markedly lower burnout.
Despite physicians now spending more time on EHR in-basket tasks than they did before the pandemic, the study found no significant associations between message characteristics and burnout.
Data for the cross-sectional study were collected from multiple specialties from April to September 2020. Physicians then completed a survey and assessed their burnout on a 5-point scale. Of the 609 physician responses, approximately 49% of participants were women, 56% were White, and 64% worked in outpatient settings. About 70% of the doctors had been in practice for 15 years or less.
The sentiment score was based on word content as well as the use of negation, punctuation, degree modifiers, all caps, emoticons, emojis, and acronyms. Positive patient messages were more likely to convey gratitude and thanks, along with casual expressions, such as “fyi” and “lol.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among the emails, 43% were from patients; the remainder were mostly from other physicians or clinicians, or automated. The content of the messages wasn’t associated with doctor burnout, as the researchers had hypothesized. And only about 5% of the messages had negative sentiment.
But the researchers were struck by the hostility of that sentiment, displayed in messages like these that surely would be distressing for physicians to read:
“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in he**. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”
“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”
About 5% of emails had an overall negative sentiment, with high-frequency words like “cancel,” “pain,” or “problem.” Among patient messages, 3% were negative and contained words and expletives suggesting hatred, hostility, or violence.
“F***” was the most common expletive used by patients.
Researchers provided examples of profanity-laced messages, including one patient who said, “I am so upset that I was told the blood work would include the gender of the baby. I have been waiting 5 [days] to find it, and it wasn’t even fu**ing tested!!!! What a disappointment in your office and the bullsh** I was told. I will be switching plans because this is sh**!”
Researchers also noted some high-frequency words associated with violence, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill.”
“This is concerning, especially given documentation of patient-inflicted violence against physicians. Health systems should be proactive in ensuring that the in-basket does not become a venue for physician abuse and cyberbullying,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.
“Posting reminders in EHR patient portals to use kind language when sending messages, applying filters for expletives or threatening words, and creating frameworks for identifying patients who frequently send negative messages are potential strategies for mitigating this risk.”
Using a form of artificial intelligence technology called natural language processing (NLP), researchers at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed the characteristics of more than 1.4 million emails received by the university’s physicians, 43% of them from patients. They specifically looked at the volume of messages, word count, and overall sentiment.
Whereas other studies have examined the growing burden of EHR messaging for doctors, this type of email sentiment analysis could help in creating solutions. Researchers say that one such solution could involve applying filters for expletives or threatening words. It also could help identify fixable health system issues that make patients so angry, the researchers say.
Among the emails from physicians to physicians, just over half reported burnout, which correlated to the following phrases: “I am beginning to burn out and have one or more symptoms of burnout” and “I feel completely burned out [and] am at the point where I may need to seek help.”
On average, physicians who reported burnout received a greater volume of patient messages. The odds of burnout were significantly higher among Hispanic/Latinx physicians and females. Physicians with more than 15 years of clinical practice had markedly lower burnout.
Despite physicians now spending more time on EHR in-basket tasks than they did before the pandemic, the study found no significant associations between message characteristics and burnout.
Data for the cross-sectional study were collected from multiple specialties from April to September 2020. Physicians then completed a survey and assessed their burnout on a 5-point scale. Of the 609 physician responses, approximately 49% of participants were women, 56% were White, and 64% worked in outpatient settings. About 70% of the doctors had been in practice for 15 years or less.
The sentiment score was based on word content as well as the use of negation, punctuation, degree modifiers, all caps, emoticons, emojis, and acronyms. Positive patient messages were more likely to convey gratitude and thanks, along with casual expressions, such as “fyi” and “lol.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN