User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
New COVID strain may evade vaccines, alarming health officials
The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.
Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.
Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.
“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.
The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.
A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.
The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.
The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.
“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.
Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.
“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.
Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.
Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.
“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.
The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.
A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.
The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.
The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.
“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.
Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.
“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.
Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.
Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.
“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.
The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.
A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.
The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.
The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.
“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.
Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.
“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Poor sleep and chronic pain prove pesky bedfellows
Early in his career as a pain researcher, Daniel Whibley, PhD, was struck by an article that drew parallels between methods of torture and the experiences of patients with insomnia and chronic pain.
The author of that article, Nicole Tang, DPhil, observed that two methods used by torturers – pain infliction and sleep deprivation – harm people in ways that also are experienced by many patients with pain and sleep conditions.
Patients are “essentially living in this perpetually undesirable, at best, situation where both of these features are playing out in their lives,” said Dr. Whibley, a research assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The problems create a “kind of vicious circle,” he said. Pain disrupts sleep. Insufficient sleep worsens pain.
Studies have established important relationships between the conditions, but investigators are still trying to clarify the mechanisms that connect them and the best ways to intervene to improve patient outcomes.
To that end, Dr. Whibley has developed an intervention known as Move & Snooze to benefit patients with pain associated with osteoarthritis.
The program includes remote exercise coaching and an automated 6-week course of digital cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I).
He and his colleagues have tested the intervention in a feasibility study and are in the process of securing grant funding to test it in a large, nationwide trial.
Losing sleep for science
Michael Smith, PhD, is examining the sleep-pain connection from a different angle.
Dr. Smith, the director of the Behavioral Medicine Research Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, is recruiting healthy adults to endure restless nights and painful stimuli.
His team is conducting a study known as Sleep-MOR that aims to reveal how different types of sleep disturbances influence pain and a person’s response to opioids.
Nearly three dozen participants have completed the study so far, Dr. Smith said, out of what he hopes will be 200 in all.
Participants are randomly assigned to sleep normally or to undergo an experimental condition that is designed to mimic the sleep disturbances of insomnia or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
In a “forced awakening” group, participants are awakened for 20-minute intervals every hour and for a full hour-long window during the night. In this condition, they could sleep for about four hours in all. Forced awakening is intended to represent insomnia
A “sleep fragmentation” group is meant to represent patients with OSA. About 30 times per hour, tones and tactile buzzers rouse sleeping participants without fully waking them up. Although the experiment involves brief arousals such as those experienced by patients with OSA, it does not capture another important feature of sleep apnea – the cessation of breathing, Dr. Smith noted.
The next day, researchers perform pain testing and brain imaging and see how opioid receptors respond to pain medication.
“Some of the forms of sleep loss that we are studying may actually alter the efficacy of the binding of those receptors, and that might then require you to have higher doses of an opioid to get the same effect,” Dr. Smith said. “That’s our hypothesis.”
If that bears out, disturbed sleep may play a role in the development of opioid use disorder and have implications for patients who receive opioids after surgery, he said.
In the lab, researchers examine pain thresholds using techniques such as thermal pain testing, in which a thermode attached to a participant’s arm heats up. The temperature “slowly goes up and the patient just says: ‘Ouch,’ when it first hurts. Then we have their pain threshold,” Dr. Smith said.
A bidirectional relationship
Epidemiologic studies have found that, if you follow women who do not have pain, those with complaints about sleep are more than twice as likely to develop fibromyalgia.
Dr. Smith’s group and others have shown that if you deprive a healthy person of sleep, they become more sensitive to pain.
Inflammation could be one possible reason for this effect. In one study, participants who experienced forced awakening experienced less slow-wave sleep, which was tied to more inflammation in the morning. Increased inflammation was linked to greater pain sensitivity.
“We are starting to piece together some of the pathways. That’s just one,” Dr. Smith said.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University and elsewhere investigated how sleep disturbances affected three pain pathways. In that study, the results varied by sex. The data indicate that optimal treatment approaches might differ for men and women, the researchers said.
Waking up to the problem
Sleep problems can be neglected in medical school and in the clinic. “People just have other things to focus on that they clearly know what they can do about it,” Dr. Smith said.
But clinicians should not hesitate to screen for conditions such as insomnia or OSA and refer patients to a specialist. If a patient has had pain for 6 months and treatments are not working, the chance that they have a treatable sleep disorder “is very high, above 50%,” Dr. Smith said. Many could have more than one sleep disorder, he added.
Continuous positive airway pressure for OSA and CBT for insomnia can improve sleep. Dr. Smith said he expects these measures will improve overall pain management as well.
If treating a sleep disorder fails to help with pain, however, it may still help prevent other sleep-related problems, such as depression, poor glucose control, and heart disease. It also could improve patients’ ability to function day to day, he said.
Evidence on whether treating sleep problems reduces pain has so far been mixed.
“We’ve done some studies showing that if you have CBT-I and you have knee arthritis, improvements in the amount of time you spend awake at night translate into improvements in pain at 6 months. There is a signal there, but it’s not as strong as we would like,” he said. “It may be that it takes longer than anyone would like” to have an effect.
A structured intervention such as CBT-I is likely more beneficial than education about sleep hygiene alone in resolving sleep disturbances, Dr. Whibley said. CBT-I includes active components such as sleep restriction therapy and stimulus control therapy and is recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine as the first-line treatment for chronic insomnia (J Clin Sleep Med. 2008 Oct 15;4[5]:487-504).
Patients should consider the role that sleep may play in their chronic pain condition, he said.
“An increasing number of researchers and clinicians are becoming more interested in this as a foundational pillar of health, alongside activity and diet,” Dr. Whibley said. “Sleep is recognized as just as important but doesn’t seem to get the airtime.”
Clinicians, he added, should regularly assess their patients’ sleep and know where to refer those whom they feel would benefit from more advanced management: “They [should] know that they have at least got it on their radar to check as one of the important pillars of health that you should be able to control.”
Sleep trials seeking pain patients
Researchers around the United States are conducting dozens of studies related to sleep and pain. The following trials are recruiting participants, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.
Sleep and Pain Interventions in Women With Fibromyalgia (SPIN-II). Investigators at the University of Missouri–Columbia are examining two cognitive-behavioral treatments for women with fibromyalgia and insomnia. “This trial will yield important information about the roles of sleep, arousal, and brain structure and function in the development and maintenance of chronic pain in women with fibromyalgia,” the researchers say.
Prospective Randomized Trial of CPAP for SDB in Patients Who Use Opioids (PRESTO). At the University of California, San Diego, researchers are investigating whether patients with chronic pain who use opioids and have sleep-disordered breathing may benefit from treatment with continuous positive airway pressure. They plan to assess the intervention’s effects on sleep quality, pain, and quality of life. They also will see which patients are least likely to benefit from this treatment approach.
Latent Aging Mechanisms in Pain and Sleep (LAMPS). Researchers at the University of Florida are studying the effects of oral gamma-aminobutyric acid in older adults with chronic pain and sleep difficulties.
Sleep and Pain in Sickle Cell Disease. At Johns Hopkins University, investigators are evaluating how behavioral sleep interventions influence pain and brain function in patients with sickle cell disease.
Pain in Long COVID-19: The Role of Sleep. Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are conducting an observational study of patients with long COVID who have pain and sleep disturbances. The study aims “to understand the role of sleep in the development and persistence of pain symptoms in long COVID.”
Intervention for Sleep and Pain in Youth: A Randomized Controlled Trial (I-SPY-RCT). Adolescents with migraine are being recruited by a team at Seattle Children’s Hospital for a randomized controlled trial. The study will examine the effects of CBT-I as well as the combined effect of CBT-I and pain interventions on reducing insomnia symptoms and headache-related disability in this population.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Early in his career as a pain researcher, Daniel Whibley, PhD, was struck by an article that drew parallels between methods of torture and the experiences of patients with insomnia and chronic pain.
The author of that article, Nicole Tang, DPhil, observed that two methods used by torturers – pain infliction and sleep deprivation – harm people in ways that also are experienced by many patients with pain and sleep conditions.
Patients are “essentially living in this perpetually undesirable, at best, situation where both of these features are playing out in their lives,” said Dr. Whibley, a research assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The problems create a “kind of vicious circle,” he said. Pain disrupts sleep. Insufficient sleep worsens pain.
Studies have established important relationships between the conditions, but investigators are still trying to clarify the mechanisms that connect them and the best ways to intervene to improve patient outcomes.
To that end, Dr. Whibley has developed an intervention known as Move & Snooze to benefit patients with pain associated with osteoarthritis.
The program includes remote exercise coaching and an automated 6-week course of digital cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I).
He and his colleagues have tested the intervention in a feasibility study and are in the process of securing grant funding to test it in a large, nationwide trial.
Losing sleep for science
Michael Smith, PhD, is examining the sleep-pain connection from a different angle.
Dr. Smith, the director of the Behavioral Medicine Research Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, is recruiting healthy adults to endure restless nights and painful stimuli.
His team is conducting a study known as Sleep-MOR that aims to reveal how different types of sleep disturbances influence pain and a person’s response to opioids.
Nearly three dozen participants have completed the study so far, Dr. Smith said, out of what he hopes will be 200 in all.
Participants are randomly assigned to sleep normally or to undergo an experimental condition that is designed to mimic the sleep disturbances of insomnia or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
In a “forced awakening” group, participants are awakened for 20-minute intervals every hour and for a full hour-long window during the night. In this condition, they could sleep for about four hours in all. Forced awakening is intended to represent insomnia
A “sleep fragmentation” group is meant to represent patients with OSA. About 30 times per hour, tones and tactile buzzers rouse sleeping participants without fully waking them up. Although the experiment involves brief arousals such as those experienced by patients with OSA, it does not capture another important feature of sleep apnea – the cessation of breathing, Dr. Smith noted.
The next day, researchers perform pain testing and brain imaging and see how opioid receptors respond to pain medication.
“Some of the forms of sleep loss that we are studying may actually alter the efficacy of the binding of those receptors, and that might then require you to have higher doses of an opioid to get the same effect,” Dr. Smith said. “That’s our hypothesis.”
If that bears out, disturbed sleep may play a role in the development of opioid use disorder and have implications for patients who receive opioids after surgery, he said.
In the lab, researchers examine pain thresholds using techniques such as thermal pain testing, in which a thermode attached to a participant’s arm heats up. The temperature “slowly goes up and the patient just says: ‘Ouch,’ when it first hurts. Then we have their pain threshold,” Dr. Smith said.
A bidirectional relationship
Epidemiologic studies have found that, if you follow women who do not have pain, those with complaints about sleep are more than twice as likely to develop fibromyalgia.
Dr. Smith’s group and others have shown that if you deprive a healthy person of sleep, they become more sensitive to pain.
Inflammation could be one possible reason for this effect. In one study, participants who experienced forced awakening experienced less slow-wave sleep, which was tied to more inflammation in the morning. Increased inflammation was linked to greater pain sensitivity.
“We are starting to piece together some of the pathways. That’s just one,” Dr. Smith said.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University and elsewhere investigated how sleep disturbances affected three pain pathways. In that study, the results varied by sex. The data indicate that optimal treatment approaches might differ for men and women, the researchers said.
Waking up to the problem
Sleep problems can be neglected in medical school and in the clinic. “People just have other things to focus on that they clearly know what they can do about it,” Dr. Smith said.
But clinicians should not hesitate to screen for conditions such as insomnia or OSA and refer patients to a specialist. If a patient has had pain for 6 months and treatments are not working, the chance that they have a treatable sleep disorder “is very high, above 50%,” Dr. Smith said. Many could have more than one sleep disorder, he added.
Continuous positive airway pressure for OSA and CBT for insomnia can improve sleep. Dr. Smith said he expects these measures will improve overall pain management as well.
If treating a sleep disorder fails to help with pain, however, it may still help prevent other sleep-related problems, such as depression, poor glucose control, and heart disease. It also could improve patients’ ability to function day to day, he said.
Evidence on whether treating sleep problems reduces pain has so far been mixed.
“We’ve done some studies showing that if you have CBT-I and you have knee arthritis, improvements in the amount of time you spend awake at night translate into improvements in pain at 6 months. There is a signal there, but it’s not as strong as we would like,” he said. “It may be that it takes longer than anyone would like” to have an effect.
A structured intervention such as CBT-I is likely more beneficial than education about sleep hygiene alone in resolving sleep disturbances, Dr. Whibley said. CBT-I includes active components such as sleep restriction therapy and stimulus control therapy and is recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine as the first-line treatment for chronic insomnia (J Clin Sleep Med. 2008 Oct 15;4[5]:487-504).
Patients should consider the role that sleep may play in their chronic pain condition, he said.
“An increasing number of researchers and clinicians are becoming more interested in this as a foundational pillar of health, alongside activity and diet,” Dr. Whibley said. “Sleep is recognized as just as important but doesn’t seem to get the airtime.”
Clinicians, he added, should regularly assess their patients’ sleep and know where to refer those whom they feel would benefit from more advanced management: “They [should] know that they have at least got it on their radar to check as one of the important pillars of health that you should be able to control.”
Sleep trials seeking pain patients
Researchers around the United States are conducting dozens of studies related to sleep and pain. The following trials are recruiting participants, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.
Sleep and Pain Interventions in Women With Fibromyalgia (SPIN-II). Investigators at the University of Missouri–Columbia are examining two cognitive-behavioral treatments for women with fibromyalgia and insomnia. “This trial will yield important information about the roles of sleep, arousal, and brain structure and function in the development and maintenance of chronic pain in women with fibromyalgia,” the researchers say.
Prospective Randomized Trial of CPAP for SDB in Patients Who Use Opioids (PRESTO). At the University of California, San Diego, researchers are investigating whether patients with chronic pain who use opioids and have sleep-disordered breathing may benefit from treatment with continuous positive airway pressure. They plan to assess the intervention’s effects on sleep quality, pain, and quality of life. They also will see which patients are least likely to benefit from this treatment approach.
Latent Aging Mechanisms in Pain and Sleep (LAMPS). Researchers at the University of Florida are studying the effects of oral gamma-aminobutyric acid in older adults with chronic pain and sleep difficulties.
Sleep and Pain in Sickle Cell Disease. At Johns Hopkins University, investigators are evaluating how behavioral sleep interventions influence pain and brain function in patients with sickle cell disease.
Pain in Long COVID-19: The Role of Sleep. Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are conducting an observational study of patients with long COVID who have pain and sleep disturbances. The study aims “to understand the role of sleep in the development and persistence of pain symptoms in long COVID.”
Intervention for Sleep and Pain in Youth: A Randomized Controlled Trial (I-SPY-RCT). Adolescents with migraine are being recruited by a team at Seattle Children’s Hospital for a randomized controlled trial. The study will examine the effects of CBT-I as well as the combined effect of CBT-I and pain interventions on reducing insomnia symptoms and headache-related disability in this population.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Early in his career as a pain researcher, Daniel Whibley, PhD, was struck by an article that drew parallels between methods of torture and the experiences of patients with insomnia and chronic pain.
The author of that article, Nicole Tang, DPhil, observed that two methods used by torturers – pain infliction and sleep deprivation – harm people in ways that also are experienced by many patients with pain and sleep conditions.
Patients are “essentially living in this perpetually undesirable, at best, situation where both of these features are playing out in their lives,” said Dr. Whibley, a research assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The problems create a “kind of vicious circle,” he said. Pain disrupts sleep. Insufficient sleep worsens pain.
Studies have established important relationships between the conditions, but investigators are still trying to clarify the mechanisms that connect them and the best ways to intervene to improve patient outcomes.
To that end, Dr. Whibley has developed an intervention known as Move & Snooze to benefit patients with pain associated with osteoarthritis.
The program includes remote exercise coaching and an automated 6-week course of digital cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I).
He and his colleagues have tested the intervention in a feasibility study and are in the process of securing grant funding to test it in a large, nationwide trial.
Losing sleep for science
Michael Smith, PhD, is examining the sleep-pain connection from a different angle.
Dr. Smith, the director of the Behavioral Medicine Research Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, is recruiting healthy adults to endure restless nights and painful stimuli.
His team is conducting a study known as Sleep-MOR that aims to reveal how different types of sleep disturbances influence pain and a person’s response to opioids.
Nearly three dozen participants have completed the study so far, Dr. Smith said, out of what he hopes will be 200 in all.
Participants are randomly assigned to sleep normally or to undergo an experimental condition that is designed to mimic the sleep disturbances of insomnia or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
In a “forced awakening” group, participants are awakened for 20-minute intervals every hour and for a full hour-long window during the night. In this condition, they could sleep for about four hours in all. Forced awakening is intended to represent insomnia
A “sleep fragmentation” group is meant to represent patients with OSA. About 30 times per hour, tones and tactile buzzers rouse sleeping participants without fully waking them up. Although the experiment involves brief arousals such as those experienced by patients with OSA, it does not capture another important feature of sleep apnea – the cessation of breathing, Dr. Smith noted.
The next day, researchers perform pain testing and brain imaging and see how opioid receptors respond to pain medication.
“Some of the forms of sleep loss that we are studying may actually alter the efficacy of the binding of those receptors, and that might then require you to have higher doses of an opioid to get the same effect,” Dr. Smith said. “That’s our hypothesis.”
If that bears out, disturbed sleep may play a role in the development of opioid use disorder and have implications for patients who receive opioids after surgery, he said.
In the lab, researchers examine pain thresholds using techniques such as thermal pain testing, in which a thermode attached to a participant’s arm heats up. The temperature “slowly goes up and the patient just says: ‘Ouch,’ when it first hurts. Then we have their pain threshold,” Dr. Smith said.
A bidirectional relationship
Epidemiologic studies have found that, if you follow women who do not have pain, those with complaints about sleep are more than twice as likely to develop fibromyalgia.
Dr. Smith’s group and others have shown that if you deprive a healthy person of sleep, they become more sensitive to pain.
Inflammation could be one possible reason for this effect. In one study, participants who experienced forced awakening experienced less slow-wave sleep, which was tied to more inflammation in the morning. Increased inflammation was linked to greater pain sensitivity.
“We are starting to piece together some of the pathways. That’s just one,” Dr. Smith said.
A recent study by researchers at Harvard University and elsewhere investigated how sleep disturbances affected three pain pathways. In that study, the results varied by sex. The data indicate that optimal treatment approaches might differ for men and women, the researchers said.
Waking up to the problem
Sleep problems can be neglected in medical school and in the clinic. “People just have other things to focus on that they clearly know what they can do about it,” Dr. Smith said.
But clinicians should not hesitate to screen for conditions such as insomnia or OSA and refer patients to a specialist. If a patient has had pain for 6 months and treatments are not working, the chance that they have a treatable sleep disorder “is very high, above 50%,” Dr. Smith said. Many could have more than one sleep disorder, he added.
Continuous positive airway pressure for OSA and CBT for insomnia can improve sleep. Dr. Smith said he expects these measures will improve overall pain management as well.
If treating a sleep disorder fails to help with pain, however, it may still help prevent other sleep-related problems, such as depression, poor glucose control, and heart disease. It also could improve patients’ ability to function day to day, he said.
Evidence on whether treating sleep problems reduces pain has so far been mixed.
“We’ve done some studies showing that if you have CBT-I and you have knee arthritis, improvements in the amount of time you spend awake at night translate into improvements in pain at 6 months. There is a signal there, but it’s not as strong as we would like,” he said. “It may be that it takes longer than anyone would like” to have an effect.
A structured intervention such as CBT-I is likely more beneficial than education about sleep hygiene alone in resolving sleep disturbances, Dr. Whibley said. CBT-I includes active components such as sleep restriction therapy and stimulus control therapy and is recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine as the first-line treatment for chronic insomnia (J Clin Sleep Med. 2008 Oct 15;4[5]:487-504).
Patients should consider the role that sleep may play in their chronic pain condition, he said.
“An increasing number of researchers and clinicians are becoming more interested in this as a foundational pillar of health, alongside activity and diet,” Dr. Whibley said. “Sleep is recognized as just as important but doesn’t seem to get the airtime.”
Clinicians, he added, should regularly assess their patients’ sleep and know where to refer those whom they feel would benefit from more advanced management: “They [should] know that they have at least got it on their radar to check as one of the important pillars of health that you should be able to control.”
Sleep trials seeking pain patients
Researchers around the United States are conducting dozens of studies related to sleep and pain. The following trials are recruiting participants, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.
Sleep and Pain Interventions in Women With Fibromyalgia (SPIN-II). Investigators at the University of Missouri–Columbia are examining two cognitive-behavioral treatments for women with fibromyalgia and insomnia. “This trial will yield important information about the roles of sleep, arousal, and brain structure and function in the development and maintenance of chronic pain in women with fibromyalgia,” the researchers say.
Prospective Randomized Trial of CPAP for SDB in Patients Who Use Opioids (PRESTO). At the University of California, San Diego, researchers are investigating whether patients with chronic pain who use opioids and have sleep-disordered breathing may benefit from treatment with continuous positive airway pressure. They plan to assess the intervention’s effects on sleep quality, pain, and quality of life. They also will see which patients are least likely to benefit from this treatment approach.
Latent Aging Mechanisms in Pain and Sleep (LAMPS). Researchers at the University of Florida are studying the effects of oral gamma-aminobutyric acid in older adults with chronic pain and sleep difficulties.
Sleep and Pain in Sickle Cell Disease. At Johns Hopkins University, investigators are evaluating how behavioral sleep interventions influence pain and brain function in patients with sickle cell disease.
Pain in Long COVID-19: The Role of Sleep. Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are conducting an observational study of patients with long COVID who have pain and sleep disturbances. The study aims “to understand the role of sleep in the development and persistence of pain symptoms in long COVID.”
Intervention for Sleep and Pain in Youth: A Randomized Controlled Trial (I-SPY-RCT). Adolescents with migraine are being recruited by a team at Seattle Children’s Hospital for a randomized controlled trial. The study will examine the effects of CBT-I as well as the combined effect of CBT-I and pain interventions on reducing insomnia symptoms and headache-related disability in this population.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Buyer beware
The invitation came to my house, addressed to “residential customer.” It was for my wife and me to attend a free dinner at a swanky local restaurant to learn about “revolutionary” treatments for memory loss. It was presented by a “wellness expert.”
Of course, I just had to check out the website.
The dinner was hosted by an internist pushing an unproven (except for the usual small noncontrolled studies) treatment. Although not stated, I’m sure when you call you’ll find out this is not covered by insurance; not Food and Drug Administration approved to treat, cure, diagnose, prevent any disease; your mileage may vary, etc.
The website was full of testimonials as to how well the treatments worked, primarily from people in their 20s-40s who are, realistically, unlikely to have a pathologically serious cause for memory problems. The site also mentions that you can use it to treat traumatic brain injury, ADHD, learning disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, PTSD, Parkinson’s disease, autism, dementia, and stroke, though it does clearly state that such use is not FDA approved.
Prices (I assume all cash pay) for the treatment weren’t listed. I guess you have to come to the “free” dinner for those, or submit an online form to the office.
I’m not going to say the advertised treatment doesn’t work. It might, for at least some of those things. A PubMed search tells me it’s under investigation for several of them.
But that doesn’t mean it works. It might, but a lot of things that look promising in early trials end up failing in the long run. So, at least to me, this is no different than people selling various over-the-counter supplements online with all kinds of extravagant claims and testimonials.
I also have to question a treatment targeting young people for memory loss. In neurology we see a lot of that, and know that true pathology is rare. Most of these patients have root issues with depression, or anxiety, or stress that are affecting their memory. That doesn’t make their memory issues any less real, but they shouldn’t be lumped in with neurodegenerative diseases. They need to be correctly diagnosed and treated for what they are.
Maybe it’s just me, but I often see this sort of thing as kind of sketchy – generating business for unproven treatments by selling fear – you need to do something NOW to keep from getting worse. And, of course there’s always the mysterious “they.” The treatments “they” offer don’t work. Why aren’t “they” telling you what really does?
Looking at the restaurant’s online menu, dinners are around $75 per person and the invitation says “seats are limited.” Doing some mental math gives you an idea how many diners need to come, what percentage of them need to sign up for the treatment, and how much it costs to recoup the investment.
Let the buyer beware.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
The invitation came to my house, addressed to “residential customer.” It was for my wife and me to attend a free dinner at a swanky local restaurant to learn about “revolutionary” treatments for memory loss. It was presented by a “wellness expert.”
Of course, I just had to check out the website.
The dinner was hosted by an internist pushing an unproven (except for the usual small noncontrolled studies) treatment. Although not stated, I’m sure when you call you’ll find out this is not covered by insurance; not Food and Drug Administration approved to treat, cure, diagnose, prevent any disease; your mileage may vary, etc.
The website was full of testimonials as to how well the treatments worked, primarily from people in their 20s-40s who are, realistically, unlikely to have a pathologically serious cause for memory problems. The site also mentions that you can use it to treat traumatic brain injury, ADHD, learning disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, PTSD, Parkinson’s disease, autism, dementia, and stroke, though it does clearly state that such use is not FDA approved.
Prices (I assume all cash pay) for the treatment weren’t listed. I guess you have to come to the “free” dinner for those, or submit an online form to the office.
I’m not going to say the advertised treatment doesn’t work. It might, for at least some of those things. A PubMed search tells me it’s under investigation for several of them.
But that doesn’t mean it works. It might, but a lot of things that look promising in early trials end up failing in the long run. So, at least to me, this is no different than people selling various over-the-counter supplements online with all kinds of extravagant claims and testimonials.
I also have to question a treatment targeting young people for memory loss. In neurology we see a lot of that, and know that true pathology is rare. Most of these patients have root issues with depression, or anxiety, or stress that are affecting their memory. That doesn’t make their memory issues any less real, but they shouldn’t be lumped in with neurodegenerative diseases. They need to be correctly diagnosed and treated for what they are.
Maybe it’s just me, but I often see this sort of thing as kind of sketchy – generating business for unproven treatments by selling fear – you need to do something NOW to keep from getting worse. And, of course there’s always the mysterious “they.” The treatments “they” offer don’t work. Why aren’t “they” telling you what really does?
Looking at the restaurant’s online menu, dinners are around $75 per person and the invitation says “seats are limited.” Doing some mental math gives you an idea how many diners need to come, what percentage of them need to sign up for the treatment, and how much it costs to recoup the investment.
Let the buyer beware.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
The invitation came to my house, addressed to “residential customer.” It was for my wife and me to attend a free dinner at a swanky local restaurant to learn about “revolutionary” treatments for memory loss. It was presented by a “wellness expert.”
Of course, I just had to check out the website.
The dinner was hosted by an internist pushing an unproven (except for the usual small noncontrolled studies) treatment. Although not stated, I’m sure when you call you’ll find out this is not covered by insurance; not Food and Drug Administration approved to treat, cure, diagnose, prevent any disease; your mileage may vary, etc.
The website was full of testimonials as to how well the treatments worked, primarily from people in their 20s-40s who are, realistically, unlikely to have a pathologically serious cause for memory problems. The site also mentions that you can use it to treat traumatic brain injury, ADHD, learning disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, PTSD, Parkinson’s disease, autism, dementia, and stroke, though it does clearly state that such use is not FDA approved.
Prices (I assume all cash pay) for the treatment weren’t listed. I guess you have to come to the “free” dinner for those, or submit an online form to the office.
I’m not going to say the advertised treatment doesn’t work. It might, for at least some of those things. A PubMed search tells me it’s under investigation for several of them.
But that doesn’t mean it works. It might, but a lot of things that look promising in early trials end up failing in the long run. So, at least to me, this is no different than people selling various over-the-counter supplements online with all kinds of extravagant claims and testimonials.
I also have to question a treatment targeting young people for memory loss. In neurology we see a lot of that, and know that true pathology is rare. Most of these patients have root issues with depression, or anxiety, or stress that are affecting their memory. That doesn’t make their memory issues any less real, but they shouldn’t be lumped in with neurodegenerative diseases. They need to be correctly diagnosed and treated for what they are.
Maybe it’s just me, but I often see this sort of thing as kind of sketchy – generating business for unproven treatments by selling fear – you need to do something NOW to keep from getting worse. And, of course there’s always the mysterious “they.” The treatments “they” offer don’t work. Why aren’t “they” telling you what really does?
Looking at the restaurant’s online menu, dinners are around $75 per person and the invitation says “seats are limited.” Doing some mental math gives you an idea how many diners need to come, what percentage of them need to sign up for the treatment, and how much it costs to recoup the investment.
Let the buyer beware.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Dementia diagnosis a good time to reduce polypharmacy
Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.
They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.
According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.
“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”
Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.
Matched cohort study
The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.
The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).
Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.
The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.
The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.
While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.
Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.”
The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.
Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.
They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.
According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.
“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”
Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.
Matched cohort study
The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.
The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).
Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.
The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.
The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.
While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.
Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.”
The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.
Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.
They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.
According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.
“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”
Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.
Matched cohort study
The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.
The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).
Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.
The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.
The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.
While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.
Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.”
The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
Lobbying allowed insurers to charge physicians fees to receive payments online: Report
, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica.
The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.
But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.
According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.
The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.
Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.
When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.
“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
Predatory practices
It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.
In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”
So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica.
The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.
But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.
According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.
The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.
Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.
When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.
“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
Predatory practices
It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.
In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”
So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica.
The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.
But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.
According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.
The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.
Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.
When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.
“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
Predatory practices
It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.
In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”
So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Could a malpractice insurer drop you when you need it most?
You’ve practiced medicine for years without issues, but now you are facing a medical malpractice case. No worries – you’ve had professional liability insurance all this time, so surely there’s nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly, your medical malpractice insurer will cover the costs of defending you. Or will they? One case casts questions on just this issue.
Professional liability insurance
According to the American Medical Association, almost one in three physicians (31%) have had a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against them at some point in their careers. These numbers only increase the longer a physician practices; almost half of doctors 55 and over have been sued, compared with less than 10% of physicians under 40.
And while the majority of cases are dropped or dismissed, and the small minority of cases that do go to trial are mostly won by the defense, the cost of defending these cases can be extremely high. Physicians have medical malpractice insurance to defray these costs.
Malpractice insurance generally covers the costs of attorney fees, court costs, arbitration, compensatory damages, and settlements related to patient injury or death. Insurance sometimes, but not always, pays for the costs of malpractice lawsuits arising out of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.
But it is what the policies don’t pay for that should be of most interest to practitioners.
Exclusions to medical malpractice insurance
All professional liability insurance policies contain exclusions, and it is essential that you know what they are. While the exclusions may vary by policy, most malpractice insurance policies exclude claims stemming from:
- Reckless or intentional acts.
- Illegal/criminal activities, including theft.
- Misrepresentation, including dishonesty, fraudulent activity, falsification, and misrepresentation on forms.
- Practicing under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
- Altering patient or hospital records.
- Sexual misconduct.
- Cyber security issues, which typically require a separate cyber liability policy to protect against cyber attacks and data breaches affecting patient medical records.
It’s essential to know what your specific policy’s exclusions are, or you may be surprised to find that your malpractice liability insurance doesn’t cover you when you expected that it would. Such was the situation in a recently decided case.
Also essential is knowing what type of coverage your policy provides – claims-made or occurrence-based. Occurrence policies offer lifetime coverage for incidents that occurred during the policy period, no matter when the claim is made. Claims-made policies cover only incidents that occur and are reported within the policy’s time period (unless a “tail” policy is purchased to extend the reporting period).
The case
Dr. P was a neurologist specializing in pain management. He had a professional liability insurance policy with an insurance company. In 2012, Dr. P’s insurance agent saw a television news story about the physician being accused by the state medical board for overprescribing opioids, resulting in the deaths of 17 patients. The next day, the agent obtained copies of documents from the state medical board, including a summary suspension order and a notice of contemplated action.
The notice of contemplated action specified that Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care through injudicious prescribing, leading to approximately 17 patient deaths due to drug toxicity. Because the agent realized that lawsuits could be filed against Dr. P for the deaths, she sent the insurance company the paperwork from the medical board so the insurer would be aware of the potential claims.
However, when the insurer received the information, it did not investigate or seek more information as it was required to do. The insurer failed to get medical records, or specific patient names, and none of the 17 deaths were recorded in the insurance company’s claims system (a failure to follow company procedure). Instead, the insurance company decided to cancel Dr. P’s policy effective the following month.
The company sent Dr. P a cancellation letter advising him that his policy was being terminated due to “license suspension, nature of allegations, and practice profile,” and offered him a tail policy to purchase.
The insurance company did not advise Dr. P that he should ensure all potential claims were reported, including the 17 deaths, before his policy expired. The company also did not advise him that he had a claims-made policy and what that meant regarding future lawsuits that might be filed after his policy period expired.
A year later, Dr. P was sued in two wrongful death lawsuits by the families of two of the 17 opioid-related deaths. When he was served with the papers, he promptly notified the insurance company. The insurance company issued a denial letter, incorrectly asserting that the 17 drug-toxicity deaths that they were aware of did not qualify as claims under Dr. P’s policy.
After his insurance company failed to represent him, Dr. P divorced his wife of 35 years and filed for bankruptcy. The only creditors with claims were the two families who had sued him. The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against the insurance company on behalf of Dr. P for the insurer’s failure to defend and indemnify Dr. P against the wrongful death lawsuits. In 2017, the bankruptcy trustee settled the two wrongful death cases by paying the families a certain amount of cash and assigning the insurance bad faith lawsuit to them.
Court and jury decide
In 2020, the case against the insurance company ended up in court. By 2022, the court had decided some of the issues and left some for the jury to determine.
The court found that the insurance company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify Dr. P, committed unfair insurance claims practices, and committed bad faith in failing to defend the physician. The court limited the compensation to the amount of cash that had been paid to settle the two cases, and any fees and costs that Dr. P had incurred defending himself.
However, this still left the jury to decide whether the insurance company had committed bad faith in failing to indemnify (secure a person against legal liability for his/her actions) Dr. P, whether it had violated the state’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and whether punitive damages should be levied against the insurer.
The jury trial ended in a stunning $52 million verdict against the insurance company after less than 2 hours of deliberation. The jury found that the insurance company had acted in bad faith and willfully violated the Unfair Insurances Practices Act.
While the jury ultimately decided against the insurance company and sent it a strong message with a large verdict, Dr. P’s career was still over. He had stopped practicing medicine, was bankrupt, and his personal life was in shambles. The litigation had taken about a decade. Sometimes a win isn’t a victory.
Protecting yourself
The best way to protect yourself from a situation in which your insurer will not defend you is to really know and understand your insurance policy. Is it occurrence-based or claims-made insurance? What exactly does it cover? How are claims supposed to be made? Your professional liability insurance can be extremely important if you get sued, so it is equally important to choose it carefully and to really understand what is being covered.
Other ways to protect yourself:
- Know your agent. Your agent is key to explaining your policy as well as helping in the event that you need to make a claim. Dr. P’s agent saw a news story about him on television, which is why she submitted the information to the insurance company. Dr. P would have been far better off calling the agent directly when he was being investigated by the state medical board to explain the situation and seek advice.
- Be aware of exclusions to your policy. Many – such as criminal acts, reckless or intentional acts, or practicing under the influence – were mentioned earlier in this article. Some may be unexpected, so it is extremely important that you understand the specific exclusions to your particular policy.
- Be aware of your state law, and how changes might affect you. For example, in states that have outlawed or criminalized abortion, an insurance company would probably not have to represent a policy holder who was sued for malpractice involving an abortion. On the other hand, be aware that not treating a patient who needs life-saving care because you are afraid of running afoul of the law can also get you in trouble if the patient is harmed by not being treated. (For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is currently investigating two hospitals that failed to provide necessary stabilizing abortion care to a patient with an emergency medication condition resulting from a miscarriage.)
- Know how your policy defines ‘intentional’ acts (which are typically excluded from coverage). This is important. In some jurisdictions, the insured clinician has to merely intend to commit the acts in order for the claim to be excluded. In other jurisdictions, the insured doctor has to intend to cause the resulting damage. This can result in a very different outcome.
- The best thing doctors can do is to really understand what the policy covers and be prepared to make some noise if the company is not covering something that it should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you think your insurer is doing something wrong, and if the answers don’t satisfy you, consult an attorney.
The future
In the fall of 2022, at least partially in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision regarding abortion, one professional liability company (Physician’s Insurance) launched criminal defense reimbursement coverage for physicians and hospitals to pay for defense costs incurred in responding to criminal allegations arising directly from patient care.
The add-on Criminal Defense Reimbursement Endorsement was made available in Washington State in January 2023, and will be offered in other states pending regulatory approval. It reimburses defense costs up to $250,000 when criminal actions have arisen from direct patient care.
In a press release announcing the new coverage, Physician’s Insurance CEO Bill Cotter explained the company’s reasoning in providing it: “The already challenging environment for physicians and hospitals has been made even more difficult as they now navigate the legal ramifications of increased criminal medical negligence claims as seen in the case of the Nashville nurse at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the potential for criminal state claims arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the subsequent state criminalization of healthcare practices that have long been the professionally accepted standard of care.”
Expect to see more insurance companies offering new coverage options for physicians in the future as they recognize that physicians may be facing more than just medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of patient care.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
You’ve practiced medicine for years without issues, but now you are facing a medical malpractice case. No worries – you’ve had professional liability insurance all this time, so surely there’s nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly, your medical malpractice insurer will cover the costs of defending you. Or will they? One case casts questions on just this issue.
Professional liability insurance
According to the American Medical Association, almost one in three physicians (31%) have had a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against them at some point in their careers. These numbers only increase the longer a physician practices; almost half of doctors 55 and over have been sued, compared with less than 10% of physicians under 40.
And while the majority of cases are dropped or dismissed, and the small minority of cases that do go to trial are mostly won by the defense, the cost of defending these cases can be extremely high. Physicians have medical malpractice insurance to defray these costs.
Malpractice insurance generally covers the costs of attorney fees, court costs, arbitration, compensatory damages, and settlements related to patient injury or death. Insurance sometimes, but not always, pays for the costs of malpractice lawsuits arising out of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.
But it is what the policies don’t pay for that should be of most interest to practitioners.
Exclusions to medical malpractice insurance
All professional liability insurance policies contain exclusions, and it is essential that you know what they are. While the exclusions may vary by policy, most malpractice insurance policies exclude claims stemming from:
- Reckless or intentional acts.
- Illegal/criminal activities, including theft.
- Misrepresentation, including dishonesty, fraudulent activity, falsification, and misrepresentation on forms.
- Practicing under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
- Altering patient or hospital records.
- Sexual misconduct.
- Cyber security issues, which typically require a separate cyber liability policy to protect against cyber attacks and data breaches affecting patient medical records.
It’s essential to know what your specific policy’s exclusions are, or you may be surprised to find that your malpractice liability insurance doesn’t cover you when you expected that it would. Such was the situation in a recently decided case.
Also essential is knowing what type of coverage your policy provides – claims-made or occurrence-based. Occurrence policies offer lifetime coverage for incidents that occurred during the policy period, no matter when the claim is made. Claims-made policies cover only incidents that occur and are reported within the policy’s time period (unless a “tail” policy is purchased to extend the reporting period).
The case
Dr. P was a neurologist specializing in pain management. He had a professional liability insurance policy with an insurance company. In 2012, Dr. P’s insurance agent saw a television news story about the physician being accused by the state medical board for overprescribing opioids, resulting in the deaths of 17 patients. The next day, the agent obtained copies of documents from the state medical board, including a summary suspension order and a notice of contemplated action.
The notice of contemplated action specified that Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care through injudicious prescribing, leading to approximately 17 patient deaths due to drug toxicity. Because the agent realized that lawsuits could be filed against Dr. P for the deaths, she sent the insurance company the paperwork from the medical board so the insurer would be aware of the potential claims.
However, when the insurer received the information, it did not investigate or seek more information as it was required to do. The insurer failed to get medical records, or specific patient names, and none of the 17 deaths were recorded in the insurance company’s claims system (a failure to follow company procedure). Instead, the insurance company decided to cancel Dr. P’s policy effective the following month.
The company sent Dr. P a cancellation letter advising him that his policy was being terminated due to “license suspension, nature of allegations, and practice profile,” and offered him a tail policy to purchase.
The insurance company did not advise Dr. P that he should ensure all potential claims were reported, including the 17 deaths, before his policy expired. The company also did not advise him that he had a claims-made policy and what that meant regarding future lawsuits that might be filed after his policy period expired.
A year later, Dr. P was sued in two wrongful death lawsuits by the families of two of the 17 opioid-related deaths. When he was served with the papers, he promptly notified the insurance company. The insurance company issued a denial letter, incorrectly asserting that the 17 drug-toxicity deaths that they were aware of did not qualify as claims under Dr. P’s policy.
After his insurance company failed to represent him, Dr. P divorced his wife of 35 years and filed for bankruptcy. The only creditors with claims were the two families who had sued him. The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against the insurance company on behalf of Dr. P for the insurer’s failure to defend and indemnify Dr. P against the wrongful death lawsuits. In 2017, the bankruptcy trustee settled the two wrongful death cases by paying the families a certain amount of cash and assigning the insurance bad faith lawsuit to them.
Court and jury decide
In 2020, the case against the insurance company ended up in court. By 2022, the court had decided some of the issues and left some for the jury to determine.
The court found that the insurance company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify Dr. P, committed unfair insurance claims practices, and committed bad faith in failing to defend the physician. The court limited the compensation to the amount of cash that had been paid to settle the two cases, and any fees and costs that Dr. P had incurred defending himself.
However, this still left the jury to decide whether the insurance company had committed bad faith in failing to indemnify (secure a person against legal liability for his/her actions) Dr. P, whether it had violated the state’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and whether punitive damages should be levied against the insurer.
The jury trial ended in a stunning $52 million verdict against the insurance company after less than 2 hours of deliberation. The jury found that the insurance company had acted in bad faith and willfully violated the Unfair Insurances Practices Act.
While the jury ultimately decided against the insurance company and sent it a strong message with a large verdict, Dr. P’s career was still over. He had stopped practicing medicine, was bankrupt, and his personal life was in shambles. The litigation had taken about a decade. Sometimes a win isn’t a victory.
Protecting yourself
The best way to protect yourself from a situation in which your insurer will not defend you is to really know and understand your insurance policy. Is it occurrence-based or claims-made insurance? What exactly does it cover? How are claims supposed to be made? Your professional liability insurance can be extremely important if you get sued, so it is equally important to choose it carefully and to really understand what is being covered.
Other ways to protect yourself:
- Know your agent. Your agent is key to explaining your policy as well as helping in the event that you need to make a claim. Dr. P’s agent saw a news story about him on television, which is why she submitted the information to the insurance company. Dr. P would have been far better off calling the agent directly when he was being investigated by the state medical board to explain the situation and seek advice.
- Be aware of exclusions to your policy. Many – such as criminal acts, reckless or intentional acts, or practicing under the influence – were mentioned earlier in this article. Some may be unexpected, so it is extremely important that you understand the specific exclusions to your particular policy.
- Be aware of your state law, and how changes might affect you. For example, in states that have outlawed or criminalized abortion, an insurance company would probably not have to represent a policy holder who was sued for malpractice involving an abortion. On the other hand, be aware that not treating a patient who needs life-saving care because you are afraid of running afoul of the law can also get you in trouble if the patient is harmed by not being treated. (For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is currently investigating two hospitals that failed to provide necessary stabilizing abortion care to a patient with an emergency medication condition resulting from a miscarriage.)
- Know how your policy defines ‘intentional’ acts (which are typically excluded from coverage). This is important. In some jurisdictions, the insured clinician has to merely intend to commit the acts in order for the claim to be excluded. In other jurisdictions, the insured doctor has to intend to cause the resulting damage. This can result in a very different outcome.
- The best thing doctors can do is to really understand what the policy covers and be prepared to make some noise if the company is not covering something that it should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you think your insurer is doing something wrong, and if the answers don’t satisfy you, consult an attorney.
The future
In the fall of 2022, at least partially in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision regarding abortion, one professional liability company (Physician’s Insurance) launched criminal defense reimbursement coverage for physicians and hospitals to pay for defense costs incurred in responding to criminal allegations arising directly from patient care.
The add-on Criminal Defense Reimbursement Endorsement was made available in Washington State in January 2023, and will be offered in other states pending regulatory approval. It reimburses defense costs up to $250,000 when criminal actions have arisen from direct patient care.
In a press release announcing the new coverage, Physician’s Insurance CEO Bill Cotter explained the company’s reasoning in providing it: “The already challenging environment for physicians and hospitals has been made even more difficult as they now navigate the legal ramifications of increased criminal medical negligence claims as seen in the case of the Nashville nurse at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the potential for criminal state claims arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the subsequent state criminalization of healthcare practices that have long been the professionally accepted standard of care.”
Expect to see more insurance companies offering new coverage options for physicians in the future as they recognize that physicians may be facing more than just medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of patient care.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
You’ve practiced medicine for years without issues, but now you are facing a medical malpractice case. No worries – you’ve had professional liability insurance all this time, so surely there’s nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly, your medical malpractice insurer will cover the costs of defending you. Or will they? One case casts questions on just this issue.
Professional liability insurance
According to the American Medical Association, almost one in three physicians (31%) have had a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against them at some point in their careers. These numbers only increase the longer a physician practices; almost half of doctors 55 and over have been sued, compared with less than 10% of physicians under 40.
And while the majority of cases are dropped or dismissed, and the small minority of cases that do go to trial are mostly won by the defense, the cost of defending these cases can be extremely high. Physicians have medical malpractice insurance to defray these costs.
Malpractice insurance generally covers the costs of attorney fees, court costs, arbitration, compensatory damages, and settlements related to patient injury or death. Insurance sometimes, but not always, pays for the costs of malpractice lawsuits arising out of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.
But it is what the policies don’t pay for that should be of most interest to practitioners.
Exclusions to medical malpractice insurance
All professional liability insurance policies contain exclusions, and it is essential that you know what they are. While the exclusions may vary by policy, most malpractice insurance policies exclude claims stemming from:
- Reckless or intentional acts.
- Illegal/criminal activities, including theft.
- Misrepresentation, including dishonesty, fraudulent activity, falsification, and misrepresentation on forms.
- Practicing under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
- Altering patient or hospital records.
- Sexual misconduct.
- Cyber security issues, which typically require a separate cyber liability policy to protect against cyber attacks and data breaches affecting patient medical records.
It’s essential to know what your specific policy’s exclusions are, or you may be surprised to find that your malpractice liability insurance doesn’t cover you when you expected that it would. Such was the situation in a recently decided case.
Also essential is knowing what type of coverage your policy provides – claims-made or occurrence-based. Occurrence policies offer lifetime coverage for incidents that occurred during the policy period, no matter when the claim is made. Claims-made policies cover only incidents that occur and are reported within the policy’s time period (unless a “tail” policy is purchased to extend the reporting period).
The case
Dr. P was a neurologist specializing in pain management. He had a professional liability insurance policy with an insurance company. In 2012, Dr. P’s insurance agent saw a television news story about the physician being accused by the state medical board for overprescribing opioids, resulting in the deaths of 17 patients. The next day, the agent obtained copies of documents from the state medical board, including a summary suspension order and a notice of contemplated action.
The notice of contemplated action specified that Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care through injudicious prescribing, leading to approximately 17 patient deaths due to drug toxicity. Because the agent realized that lawsuits could be filed against Dr. P for the deaths, she sent the insurance company the paperwork from the medical board so the insurer would be aware of the potential claims.
However, when the insurer received the information, it did not investigate or seek more information as it was required to do. The insurer failed to get medical records, or specific patient names, and none of the 17 deaths were recorded in the insurance company’s claims system (a failure to follow company procedure). Instead, the insurance company decided to cancel Dr. P’s policy effective the following month.
The company sent Dr. P a cancellation letter advising him that his policy was being terminated due to “license suspension, nature of allegations, and practice profile,” and offered him a tail policy to purchase.
The insurance company did not advise Dr. P that he should ensure all potential claims were reported, including the 17 deaths, before his policy expired. The company also did not advise him that he had a claims-made policy and what that meant regarding future lawsuits that might be filed after his policy period expired.
A year later, Dr. P was sued in two wrongful death lawsuits by the families of two of the 17 opioid-related deaths. When he was served with the papers, he promptly notified the insurance company. The insurance company issued a denial letter, incorrectly asserting that the 17 drug-toxicity deaths that they were aware of did not qualify as claims under Dr. P’s policy.
After his insurance company failed to represent him, Dr. P divorced his wife of 35 years and filed for bankruptcy. The only creditors with claims were the two families who had sued him. The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against the insurance company on behalf of Dr. P for the insurer’s failure to defend and indemnify Dr. P against the wrongful death lawsuits. In 2017, the bankruptcy trustee settled the two wrongful death cases by paying the families a certain amount of cash and assigning the insurance bad faith lawsuit to them.
Court and jury decide
In 2020, the case against the insurance company ended up in court. By 2022, the court had decided some of the issues and left some for the jury to determine.
The court found that the insurance company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify Dr. P, committed unfair insurance claims practices, and committed bad faith in failing to defend the physician. The court limited the compensation to the amount of cash that had been paid to settle the two cases, and any fees and costs that Dr. P had incurred defending himself.
However, this still left the jury to decide whether the insurance company had committed bad faith in failing to indemnify (secure a person against legal liability for his/her actions) Dr. P, whether it had violated the state’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and whether punitive damages should be levied against the insurer.
The jury trial ended in a stunning $52 million verdict against the insurance company after less than 2 hours of deliberation. The jury found that the insurance company had acted in bad faith and willfully violated the Unfair Insurances Practices Act.
While the jury ultimately decided against the insurance company and sent it a strong message with a large verdict, Dr. P’s career was still over. He had stopped practicing medicine, was bankrupt, and his personal life was in shambles. The litigation had taken about a decade. Sometimes a win isn’t a victory.
Protecting yourself
The best way to protect yourself from a situation in which your insurer will not defend you is to really know and understand your insurance policy. Is it occurrence-based or claims-made insurance? What exactly does it cover? How are claims supposed to be made? Your professional liability insurance can be extremely important if you get sued, so it is equally important to choose it carefully and to really understand what is being covered.
Other ways to protect yourself:
- Know your agent. Your agent is key to explaining your policy as well as helping in the event that you need to make a claim. Dr. P’s agent saw a news story about him on television, which is why she submitted the information to the insurance company. Dr. P would have been far better off calling the agent directly when he was being investigated by the state medical board to explain the situation and seek advice.
- Be aware of exclusions to your policy. Many – such as criminal acts, reckless or intentional acts, or practicing under the influence – were mentioned earlier in this article. Some may be unexpected, so it is extremely important that you understand the specific exclusions to your particular policy.
- Be aware of your state law, and how changes might affect you. For example, in states that have outlawed or criminalized abortion, an insurance company would probably not have to represent a policy holder who was sued for malpractice involving an abortion. On the other hand, be aware that not treating a patient who needs life-saving care because you are afraid of running afoul of the law can also get you in trouble if the patient is harmed by not being treated. (For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is currently investigating two hospitals that failed to provide necessary stabilizing abortion care to a patient with an emergency medication condition resulting from a miscarriage.)
- Know how your policy defines ‘intentional’ acts (which are typically excluded from coverage). This is important. In some jurisdictions, the insured clinician has to merely intend to commit the acts in order for the claim to be excluded. In other jurisdictions, the insured doctor has to intend to cause the resulting damage. This can result in a very different outcome.
- The best thing doctors can do is to really understand what the policy covers and be prepared to make some noise if the company is not covering something that it should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you think your insurer is doing something wrong, and if the answers don’t satisfy you, consult an attorney.
The future
In the fall of 2022, at least partially in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision regarding abortion, one professional liability company (Physician’s Insurance) launched criminal defense reimbursement coverage for physicians and hospitals to pay for defense costs incurred in responding to criminal allegations arising directly from patient care.
The add-on Criminal Defense Reimbursement Endorsement was made available in Washington State in January 2023, and will be offered in other states pending regulatory approval. It reimburses defense costs up to $250,000 when criminal actions have arisen from direct patient care.
In a press release announcing the new coverage, Physician’s Insurance CEO Bill Cotter explained the company’s reasoning in providing it: “The already challenging environment for physicians and hospitals has been made even more difficult as they now navigate the legal ramifications of increased criminal medical negligence claims as seen in the case of the Nashville nurse at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the potential for criminal state claims arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the subsequent state criminalization of healthcare practices that have long been the professionally accepted standard of care.”
Expect to see more insurance companies offering new coverage options for physicians in the future as they recognize that physicians may be facing more than just medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of patient care.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Docs using AI? Some love it, most remain wary
When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.
“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.
Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.
He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”
The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.
Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.
More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.
“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.
MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.
Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.
Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.
“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
Drawing the line at patient care
Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.
“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.
Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:
- Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
- Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
- Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.
Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.
They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
Is regulation needed?
Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.
“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.
In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.
Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.
In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.
There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
What should doctors do?
Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.
There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.
“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.
Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.
“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.
Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.
He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”
The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.
Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.
More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.
“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.
MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.
Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.
Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.
“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
Drawing the line at patient care
Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.
“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.
Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:
- Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
- Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
- Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.
Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.
They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
Is regulation needed?
Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.
“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.
In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.
Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.
In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.
There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
What should doctors do?
Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.
There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.
“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.
Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.
“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.
Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.
He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”
The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.
Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.
More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.
“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.
MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.
Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.
Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.
“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
Drawing the line at patient care
Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.
“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.
Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:
- Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
- Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
- Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.
Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.
They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
Is regulation needed?
Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.
“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.
In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.
Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.
In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.
There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
What should doctors do?
Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.
There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.
“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.
Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Your practice was bought out by private equity: Now what?
After her emergency medicine group was acquired by a staffing firm backed by a large private equity (PE) firm, Michelle Wiener, MD, said the workflow changes came swiftly.
“Our staffing has been greatly reduced,” the Detroit physician said. “At this point, we have no say in anything. We have no say in the scheduling. We aren’t allowed to see what is billed under our name. The morale has really gone down.”
Dr. Wiener, who practices at Ascension St. John Hospital, said she and fellow physicians have repeatedly brought their concerns to TeamHealth, which in 2015 took over St. John Emergency Services PC. TeamHealth is owned by PE giant Blackstone.
“It’s very frustrating,” Dr. Wiener said. “We’re taking it from all sides.”
Blackstone and Ascension St. John did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
TeamHealth would not respond directly to questions about the Ascension St. John Hospital physicians or their concerns.
Spokesman Josh Hopson provided only a general statement: “TeamHealth is committed to making sure that clinicians have the resources and support needed to provide first-class care to patients, particularly with regard to staffing and compensation. TeamHealth has and will always put patient care first, and that is not impacted by its ownership model.”
Acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals by PE firms are rapidly growing, with more than 1,400 PE deals in health care in 2021 totaling upwards of $208 billion, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based firm that tracks mergers and acquisitions.
Some physicians praise the partnerships as an opportunity to improve technology and efficiency, whereas others decry them as raising patient costs and lowering the quality of care. A recent UC Berkeley study found that PE ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties, most notably oncology and gastroenterology.
What should you expect after PE acquisition?
Since his practice partnered with a PE firm in 2020, Milwaukee-based otolaryngologist Madan Kandula, MD, said he has found the changes positive. The practice has grown and improved operations in finance, accounting, compliance, and information technology, said Dr. Kandula, founder and CEO of Advent, an ENT practice with 15 clinics in four Midwestern states.
Dr. Kandula said his group already had a sound business practice, and that the goal of partnering with a PE firm wasn’t to change day-to-day operations but to propel the organization forward.
“From patient load to visit time to how we staff our clinics, there has been no change,” he said. “My private equity firm does not, [and] cannot, impose their will on our clinical decisions.”
Experts say the impact of PE acquisitions on individual physicians often depends on where a doctor ranks in the organization, what stage they are in their career, and how much control they had over the deal.
“It’s the older physicians who are usually selling the practice and getting the big payout,” said Anjali Dooley, a St. Louis–based health law attorney who counsels physicians about PE deals. “The younger doctors are usually not part of the deal, as they may still be employees. They don’t have any negotiating power. Hopefully, there is some transparency, but sometimes there is not, and they are blindsided by the deal.”
When it comes to workload, most PE-owned groups are put on a production-based model, such as a wRVU-based model, said Roger Strode, a Chicago-based health law attorney who focuses on health care mergers and acquisitions. Most already operate under such a model, but there might be some changes after a buyout.
Staffing may also change, added Ms. Dooley. The PE firms may want to add partners or companies already in their portfolios to create efficiencies, causing training or workflow changes.
In a hospital buyout, changes may depend on whether a department is a significant revenue generator for the hospital, Ms. Dooley noted.
PE firms frequently favor higher revenue–generating specialties, such as neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and plastic surgery. They closely scrutinize departments said that make less money, such as the emergency department or primary care, Ms. Dooley said. Physicians or teams that don’t fit the firm’s cost-efficiency plans may be terminated or replaced.
On the other hand, Mr. Strode said physicians may see improved electronic health records and collections.
“Some of your overall overhead costs may be reduced, because they’re better at it,” Mr. Strode said. “When you’ve got more scale, the cost per patient, the cost per hour, the cost per procedure, goes down, and the cost that’s applied against your production will go down. As [practices grow], they have more bargaining power with payers and you can potentially get better rates. At least, that’s the promise.”
Analysts note that PE health care acquisitions show no signs of slowing and that it pays for physicians to know what to expect and how to cope if their practice or hospital is acquired. Whether physicians have some control over a buyout or are blindsided by the transition, it’s critical to know what to consider, how workloads might change, and your options for settling in or settling up.
The PE industry has about $2 trillion lined up for potential investments in 2023, said Ms. Dooley.
“PE firms are looking at health care to expend some of this dry powder,” Ms. Dooley continued. “If done correctly, PE firms that are aware of health care regulations, compliance, and patient care issues can ... remove redundant services and improve ... efficiencies, but the bad is when that doesn’t happen, and the quality of care goes down or there are patient safety risks.”
How to prepare for and cope with PE partnerships
If your practice is considering a PE partnership, it’s important to explore the terms and conditions and carefully weigh the pros and cons, said Gary Herschman, a Newark, N.J.–based attorney who advises PE-owned physician groups.
“My recommendation is that physicians at a minimum conduct due diligence on all potential strategic options for their groups, and then make an informed decision regarding whether a partnership transaction is right for their group, as it’s not right for every group,” he said.
When Texas cardiologist Rick Snyder, MD, was considering PE partnerships, he spoke with physicians who made similar deals to determine whether they were satisfied years later, he said. In April, Snyder’s practice, HeartPlace, the largest physician-owned cardiology practice in Texas, was acquired by US Heart & Vascular, a practice management platform backed by PE firm Ares Management.
“I called every group that I knew that had done private equity for any meaningful amount of time,” Dr. Snyder said. “For the first year or two, everybody is in the honeymoon period. If the model is going to succeed or break down, it’s not going to be in the first year or two. So I wanted to talk to groups that had done this for a longer amount of time and find out what their pitfalls were. What would they have done differently? Has it been a productive relationship? Did they grow?”
Dr. Snyder, president of the Texas Medical Association, said his practice met with seven or eight firms before choosing one that best met their needs. His group wanted a platform that preserved their clinical autonomy, governance, and culture, he said. They also wanted to ensure they were not entering into a “buy and flip” scenario, but rather a “buy and build” plan.
“Thus, financial capital was not sufficient, they also had to have intellectual capital and relationship capital on their bench,” he said. “When we found the partner that embraced all of these factors as well as a history of buying and long-term building, we pulled the trigger and partnered with Ares and US Heart & Vascular Management. The partner we chose did not offer us the most money. We put a premium on these other criteria.”
“I always tell docs, know the culture of your group and your vision,” he said. “Before you go down that route, ask yourself what you want to accomplish and if it makes sense having a private equity partner to accomplish that vision with.”
For younger physicians or those with little control over buyouts, experts recommend they review their contracts and consider consulting with an attorney to better understand how the deal may affect their earnings and career prospects.
Those who have a much longer career runway need to weigh whether they want to work for a PE-linked practice, Mr. Strode said. For some, it’s time to check when their noncompete agreements end and find a position elsewhere.
Also, physicians should know their rights and the laws in their states regarding the corporate practice of medicine. Statutes vary by state, and knowing the provisions in your state helps doctors recognize their legal rights, learn possible exceptions to the requirements, and know the penalties for violations.
In Michigan, a group of physicians and other health professionals at Ascension St. John has voted to unionize. Doctors hope that the union, which includes advanced practice clinicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, will help improve patient care and protect working conditions for staff, Dr. Wiener said.
She advises physicians who are unhappy after acquisitions to speak up and stick together.
“That’s the biggest thing I think physicians should start doing,” she said. “Support each other and stand up. You are stronger together.”
Why is PE so attracted to health care?
PE firms typically buy practices or hospitals, work to make the entities more profitable, and then sell them, with the goal of doubling or tripling their investment over a short period. In general, PE firms aim for annual returns exceeding 20% after 3-7 years.
These firms know that health care is relatively recession-proof, that providers have third-party payers, and that the industry is fragmented and requires more efficiency, Ms. Dooley said.
When PE practice acquisitions started gaining momentum about 12 years ago, traditional hospital-based specialties such as anesthesiology and radiology were prime targets, said Mr. Strode.
At the same time, increasing challenges in private practice, such as declining compensation from payers, pressure to participate in value-based care programs, and rising regional competitors have fueled more physician groups to partner with PE firms, Mr. Herschman noted.
Physicians who partner with PE firms often benefit by having new access to capital to grow their practices, cost savings through group purchasing, and the ability to compete with larger health groups, Mr. Herschman said.
Questions remain, however, about how PE involvement affects health care use and spending. An April 2023 JAMA Viewpoint article called out the lack of oversight and regulation in the health care/PE space, suggesting that a stronger framework for regulation and transparency is needed.
A 2022 study in JAMA Health Forum that examined changes in prices and utilization associated with the PE acquisitions of 578 dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology physician practices from 2016 to 2020 found that prices increased by an average of 11%, and volume rose by 16%, after acquisition.
“We found that acquisitions were associated with increases in health care spending and utilization, as well as some other patterns of care like potential upcoding,” said Jane M. Zhu, MD, an author of the study and assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.
Another recent study that Dr. Zhu coauthored, published in Health Affairs, found that physician practices acquired by PE firms experience greater staff turnover and rely more heavily on advanced practice professionals than doctors.
“To the extent that that turnover indicates physicians are dissatisfied after private equity comes in, that’s really important to investigate further,” Dr. Zhu said.
PE firms owned 4% of U.S. hospitals in 2021 and 11% of nursing homes, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report. The report does not include 2021 data on medical practices but notes that from 2013 to 2016, PE firms acquired at least 2% of physician practices. Estimates of PE deals are probably lower than actual numbers because of the lack of comprehensive information sources, according to the MedPAC report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
After her emergency medicine group was acquired by a staffing firm backed by a large private equity (PE) firm, Michelle Wiener, MD, said the workflow changes came swiftly.
“Our staffing has been greatly reduced,” the Detroit physician said. “At this point, we have no say in anything. We have no say in the scheduling. We aren’t allowed to see what is billed under our name. The morale has really gone down.”
Dr. Wiener, who practices at Ascension St. John Hospital, said she and fellow physicians have repeatedly brought their concerns to TeamHealth, which in 2015 took over St. John Emergency Services PC. TeamHealth is owned by PE giant Blackstone.
“It’s very frustrating,” Dr. Wiener said. “We’re taking it from all sides.”
Blackstone and Ascension St. John did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
TeamHealth would not respond directly to questions about the Ascension St. John Hospital physicians or their concerns.
Spokesman Josh Hopson provided only a general statement: “TeamHealth is committed to making sure that clinicians have the resources and support needed to provide first-class care to patients, particularly with regard to staffing and compensation. TeamHealth has and will always put patient care first, and that is not impacted by its ownership model.”
Acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals by PE firms are rapidly growing, with more than 1,400 PE deals in health care in 2021 totaling upwards of $208 billion, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based firm that tracks mergers and acquisitions.
Some physicians praise the partnerships as an opportunity to improve technology and efficiency, whereas others decry them as raising patient costs and lowering the quality of care. A recent UC Berkeley study found that PE ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties, most notably oncology and gastroenterology.
What should you expect after PE acquisition?
Since his practice partnered with a PE firm in 2020, Milwaukee-based otolaryngologist Madan Kandula, MD, said he has found the changes positive. The practice has grown and improved operations in finance, accounting, compliance, and information technology, said Dr. Kandula, founder and CEO of Advent, an ENT practice with 15 clinics in four Midwestern states.
Dr. Kandula said his group already had a sound business practice, and that the goal of partnering with a PE firm wasn’t to change day-to-day operations but to propel the organization forward.
“From patient load to visit time to how we staff our clinics, there has been no change,” he said. “My private equity firm does not, [and] cannot, impose their will on our clinical decisions.”
Experts say the impact of PE acquisitions on individual physicians often depends on where a doctor ranks in the organization, what stage they are in their career, and how much control they had over the deal.
“It’s the older physicians who are usually selling the practice and getting the big payout,” said Anjali Dooley, a St. Louis–based health law attorney who counsels physicians about PE deals. “The younger doctors are usually not part of the deal, as they may still be employees. They don’t have any negotiating power. Hopefully, there is some transparency, but sometimes there is not, and they are blindsided by the deal.”
When it comes to workload, most PE-owned groups are put on a production-based model, such as a wRVU-based model, said Roger Strode, a Chicago-based health law attorney who focuses on health care mergers and acquisitions. Most already operate under such a model, but there might be some changes after a buyout.
Staffing may also change, added Ms. Dooley. The PE firms may want to add partners or companies already in their portfolios to create efficiencies, causing training or workflow changes.
In a hospital buyout, changes may depend on whether a department is a significant revenue generator for the hospital, Ms. Dooley noted.
PE firms frequently favor higher revenue–generating specialties, such as neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and plastic surgery. They closely scrutinize departments said that make less money, such as the emergency department or primary care, Ms. Dooley said. Physicians or teams that don’t fit the firm’s cost-efficiency plans may be terminated or replaced.
On the other hand, Mr. Strode said physicians may see improved electronic health records and collections.
“Some of your overall overhead costs may be reduced, because they’re better at it,” Mr. Strode said. “When you’ve got more scale, the cost per patient, the cost per hour, the cost per procedure, goes down, and the cost that’s applied against your production will go down. As [practices grow], they have more bargaining power with payers and you can potentially get better rates. At least, that’s the promise.”
Analysts note that PE health care acquisitions show no signs of slowing and that it pays for physicians to know what to expect and how to cope if their practice or hospital is acquired. Whether physicians have some control over a buyout or are blindsided by the transition, it’s critical to know what to consider, how workloads might change, and your options for settling in or settling up.
The PE industry has about $2 trillion lined up for potential investments in 2023, said Ms. Dooley.
“PE firms are looking at health care to expend some of this dry powder,” Ms. Dooley continued. “If done correctly, PE firms that are aware of health care regulations, compliance, and patient care issues can ... remove redundant services and improve ... efficiencies, but the bad is when that doesn’t happen, and the quality of care goes down or there are patient safety risks.”
How to prepare for and cope with PE partnerships
If your practice is considering a PE partnership, it’s important to explore the terms and conditions and carefully weigh the pros and cons, said Gary Herschman, a Newark, N.J.–based attorney who advises PE-owned physician groups.
“My recommendation is that physicians at a minimum conduct due diligence on all potential strategic options for their groups, and then make an informed decision regarding whether a partnership transaction is right for their group, as it’s not right for every group,” he said.
When Texas cardiologist Rick Snyder, MD, was considering PE partnerships, he spoke with physicians who made similar deals to determine whether they were satisfied years later, he said. In April, Snyder’s practice, HeartPlace, the largest physician-owned cardiology practice in Texas, was acquired by US Heart & Vascular, a practice management platform backed by PE firm Ares Management.
“I called every group that I knew that had done private equity for any meaningful amount of time,” Dr. Snyder said. “For the first year or two, everybody is in the honeymoon period. If the model is going to succeed or break down, it’s not going to be in the first year or two. So I wanted to talk to groups that had done this for a longer amount of time and find out what their pitfalls were. What would they have done differently? Has it been a productive relationship? Did they grow?”
Dr. Snyder, president of the Texas Medical Association, said his practice met with seven or eight firms before choosing one that best met their needs. His group wanted a platform that preserved their clinical autonomy, governance, and culture, he said. They also wanted to ensure they were not entering into a “buy and flip” scenario, but rather a “buy and build” plan.
“Thus, financial capital was not sufficient, they also had to have intellectual capital and relationship capital on their bench,” he said. “When we found the partner that embraced all of these factors as well as a history of buying and long-term building, we pulled the trigger and partnered with Ares and US Heart & Vascular Management. The partner we chose did not offer us the most money. We put a premium on these other criteria.”
“I always tell docs, know the culture of your group and your vision,” he said. “Before you go down that route, ask yourself what you want to accomplish and if it makes sense having a private equity partner to accomplish that vision with.”
For younger physicians or those with little control over buyouts, experts recommend they review their contracts and consider consulting with an attorney to better understand how the deal may affect their earnings and career prospects.
Those who have a much longer career runway need to weigh whether they want to work for a PE-linked practice, Mr. Strode said. For some, it’s time to check when their noncompete agreements end and find a position elsewhere.
Also, physicians should know their rights and the laws in their states regarding the corporate practice of medicine. Statutes vary by state, and knowing the provisions in your state helps doctors recognize their legal rights, learn possible exceptions to the requirements, and know the penalties for violations.
In Michigan, a group of physicians and other health professionals at Ascension St. John has voted to unionize. Doctors hope that the union, which includes advanced practice clinicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, will help improve patient care and protect working conditions for staff, Dr. Wiener said.
She advises physicians who are unhappy after acquisitions to speak up and stick together.
“That’s the biggest thing I think physicians should start doing,” she said. “Support each other and stand up. You are stronger together.”
Why is PE so attracted to health care?
PE firms typically buy practices or hospitals, work to make the entities more profitable, and then sell them, with the goal of doubling or tripling their investment over a short period. In general, PE firms aim for annual returns exceeding 20% after 3-7 years.
These firms know that health care is relatively recession-proof, that providers have third-party payers, and that the industry is fragmented and requires more efficiency, Ms. Dooley said.
When PE practice acquisitions started gaining momentum about 12 years ago, traditional hospital-based specialties such as anesthesiology and radiology were prime targets, said Mr. Strode.
At the same time, increasing challenges in private practice, such as declining compensation from payers, pressure to participate in value-based care programs, and rising regional competitors have fueled more physician groups to partner with PE firms, Mr. Herschman noted.
Physicians who partner with PE firms often benefit by having new access to capital to grow their practices, cost savings through group purchasing, and the ability to compete with larger health groups, Mr. Herschman said.
Questions remain, however, about how PE involvement affects health care use and spending. An April 2023 JAMA Viewpoint article called out the lack of oversight and regulation in the health care/PE space, suggesting that a stronger framework for regulation and transparency is needed.
A 2022 study in JAMA Health Forum that examined changes in prices and utilization associated with the PE acquisitions of 578 dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology physician practices from 2016 to 2020 found that prices increased by an average of 11%, and volume rose by 16%, after acquisition.
“We found that acquisitions were associated with increases in health care spending and utilization, as well as some other patterns of care like potential upcoding,” said Jane M. Zhu, MD, an author of the study and assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.
Another recent study that Dr. Zhu coauthored, published in Health Affairs, found that physician practices acquired by PE firms experience greater staff turnover and rely more heavily on advanced practice professionals than doctors.
“To the extent that that turnover indicates physicians are dissatisfied after private equity comes in, that’s really important to investigate further,” Dr. Zhu said.
PE firms owned 4% of U.S. hospitals in 2021 and 11% of nursing homes, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report. The report does not include 2021 data on medical practices but notes that from 2013 to 2016, PE firms acquired at least 2% of physician practices. Estimates of PE deals are probably lower than actual numbers because of the lack of comprehensive information sources, according to the MedPAC report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
After her emergency medicine group was acquired by a staffing firm backed by a large private equity (PE) firm, Michelle Wiener, MD, said the workflow changes came swiftly.
“Our staffing has been greatly reduced,” the Detroit physician said. “At this point, we have no say in anything. We have no say in the scheduling. We aren’t allowed to see what is billed under our name. The morale has really gone down.”
Dr. Wiener, who practices at Ascension St. John Hospital, said she and fellow physicians have repeatedly brought their concerns to TeamHealth, which in 2015 took over St. John Emergency Services PC. TeamHealth is owned by PE giant Blackstone.
“It’s very frustrating,” Dr. Wiener said. “We’re taking it from all sides.”
Blackstone and Ascension St. John did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
TeamHealth would not respond directly to questions about the Ascension St. John Hospital physicians or their concerns.
Spokesman Josh Hopson provided only a general statement: “TeamHealth is committed to making sure that clinicians have the resources and support needed to provide first-class care to patients, particularly with regard to staffing and compensation. TeamHealth has and will always put patient care first, and that is not impacted by its ownership model.”
Acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals by PE firms are rapidly growing, with more than 1,400 PE deals in health care in 2021 totaling upwards of $208 billion, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based firm that tracks mergers and acquisitions.
Some physicians praise the partnerships as an opportunity to improve technology and efficiency, whereas others decry them as raising patient costs and lowering the quality of care. A recent UC Berkeley study found that PE ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties, most notably oncology and gastroenterology.
What should you expect after PE acquisition?
Since his practice partnered with a PE firm in 2020, Milwaukee-based otolaryngologist Madan Kandula, MD, said he has found the changes positive. The practice has grown and improved operations in finance, accounting, compliance, and information technology, said Dr. Kandula, founder and CEO of Advent, an ENT practice with 15 clinics in four Midwestern states.
Dr. Kandula said his group already had a sound business practice, and that the goal of partnering with a PE firm wasn’t to change day-to-day operations but to propel the organization forward.
“From patient load to visit time to how we staff our clinics, there has been no change,” he said. “My private equity firm does not, [and] cannot, impose their will on our clinical decisions.”
Experts say the impact of PE acquisitions on individual physicians often depends on where a doctor ranks in the organization, what stage they are in their career, and how much control they had over the deal.
“It’s the older physicians who are usually selling the practice and getting the big payout,” said Anjali Dooley, a St. Louis–based health law attorney who counsels physicians about PE deals. “The younger doctors are usually not part of the deal, as they may still be employees. They don’t have any negotiating power. Hopefully, there is some transparency, but sometimes there is not, and they are blindsided by the deal.”
When it comes to workload, most PE-owned groups are put on a production-based model, such as a wRVU-based model, said Roger Strode, a Chicago-based health law attorney who focuses on health care mergers and acquisitions. Most already operate under such a model, but there might be some changes after a buyout.
Staffing may also change, added Ms. Dooley. The PE firms may want to add partners or companies already in their portfolios to create efficiencies, causing training or workflow changes.
In a hospital buyout, changes may depend on whether a department is a significant revenue generator for the hospital, Ms. Dooley noted.
PE firms frequently favor higher revenue–generating specialties, such as neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and plastic surgery. They closely scrutinize departments said that make less money, such as the emergency department or primary care, Ms. Dooley said. Physicians or teams that don’t fit the firm’s cost-efficiency plans may be terminated or replaced.
On the other hand, Mr. Strode said physicians may see improved electronic health records and collections.
“Some of your overall overhead costs may be reduced, because they’re better at it,” Mr. Strode said. “When you’ve got more scale, the cost per patient, the cost per hour, the cost per procedure, goes down, and the cost that’s applied against your production will go down. As [practices grow], they have more bargaining power with payers and you can potentially get better rates. At least, that’s the promise.”
Analysts note that PE health care acquisitions show no signs of slowing and that it pays for physicians to know what to expect and how to cope if their practice or hospital is acquired. Whether physicians have some control over a buyout or are blindsided by the transition, it’s critical to know what to consider, how workloads might change, and your options for settling in or settling up.
The PE industry has about $2 trillion lined up for potential investments in 2023, said Ms. Dooley.
“PE firms are looking at health care to expend some of this dry powder,” Ms. Dooley continued. “If done correctly, PE firms that are aware of health care regulations, compliance, and patient care issues can ... remove redundant services and improve ... efficiencies, but the bad is when that doesn’t happen, and the quality of care goes down or there are patient safety risks.”
How to prepare for and cope with PE partnerships
If your practice is considering a PE partnership, it’s important to explore the terms and conditions and carefully weigh the pros and cons, said Gary Herschman, a Newark, N.J.–based attorney who advises PE-owned physician groups.
“My recommendation is that physicians at a minimum conduct due diligence on all potential strategic options for their groups, and then make an informed decision regarding whether a partnership transaction is right for their group, as it’s not right for every group,” he said.
When Texas cardiologist Rick Snyder, MD, was considering PE partnerships, he spoke with physicians who made similar deals to determine whether they were satisfied years later, he said. In April, Snyder’s practice, HeartPlace, the largest physician-owned cardiology practice in Texas, was acquired by US Heart & Vascular, a practice management platform backed by PE firm Ares Management.
“I called every group that I knew that had done private equity for any meaningful amount of time,” Dr. Snyder said. “For the first year or two, everybody is in the honeymoon period. If the model is going to succeed or break down, it’s not going to be in the first year or two. So I wanted to talk to groups that had done this for a longer amount of time and find out what their pitfalls were. What would they have done differently? Has it been a productive relationship? Did they grow?”
Dr. Snyder, president of the Texas Medical Association, said his practice met with seven or eight firms before choosing one that best met their needs. His group wanted a platform that preserved their clinical autonomy, governance, and culture, he said. They also wanted to ensure they were not entering into a “buy and flip” scenario, but rather a “buy and build” plan.
“Thus, financial capital was not sufficient, they also had to have intellectual capital and relationship capital on their bench,” he said. “When we found the partner that embraced all of these factors as well as a history of buying and long-term building, we pulled the trigger and partnered with Ares and US Heart & Vascular Management. The partner we chose did not offer us the most money. We put a premium on these other criteria.”
“I always tell docs, know the culture of your group and your vision,” he said. “Before you go down that route, ask yourself what you want to accomplish and if it makes sense having a private equity partner to accomplish that vision with.”
For younger physicians or those with little control over buyouts, experts recommend they review their contracts and consider consulting with an attorney to better understand how the deal may affect their earnings and career prospects.
Those who have a much longer career runway need to weigh whether they want to work for a PE-linked practice, Mr. Strode said. For some, it’s time to check when their noncompete agreements end and find a position elsewhere.
Also, physicians should know their rights and the laws in their states regarding the corporate practice of medicine. Statutes vary by state, and knowing the provisions in your state helps doctors recognize their legal rights, learn possible exceptions to the requirements, and know the penalties for violations.
In Michigan, a group of physicians and other health professionals at Ascension St. John has voted to unionize. Doctors hope that the union, which includes advanced practice clinicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, will help improve patient care and protect working conditions for staff, Dr. Wiener said.
She advises physicians who are unhappy after acquisitions to speak up and stick together.
“That’s the biggest thing I think physicians should start doing,” she said. “Support each other and stand up. You are stronger together.”
Why is PE so attracted to health care?
PE firms typically buy practices or hospitals, work to make the entities more profitable, and then sell them, with the goal of doubling or tripling their investment over a short period. In general, PE firms aim for annual returns exceeding 20% after 3-7 years.
These firms know that health care is relatively recession-proof, that providers have third-party payers, and that the industry is fragmented and requires more efficiency, Ms. Dooley said.
When PE practice acquisitions started gaining momentum about 12 years ago, traditional hospital-based specialties such as anesthesiology and radiology were prime targets, said Mr. Strode.
At the same time, increasing challenges in private practice, such as declining compensation from payers, pressure to participate in value-based care programs, and rising regional competitors have fueled more physician groups to partner with PE firms, Mr. Herschman noted.
Physicians who partner with PE firms often benefit by having new access to capital to grow their practices, cost savings through group purchasing, and the ability to compete with larger health groups, Mr. Herschman said.
Questions remain, however, about how PE involvement affects health care use and spending. An April 2023 JAMA Viewpoint article called out the lack of oversight and regulation in the health care/PE space, suggesting that a stronger framework for regulation and transparency is needed.
A 2022 study in JAMA Health Forum that examined changes in prices and utilization associated with the PE acquisitions of 578 dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology physician practices from 2016 to 2020 found that prices increased by an average of 11%, and volume rose by 16%, after acquisition.
“We found that acquisitions were associated with increases in health care spending and utilization, as well as some other patterns of care like potential upcoding,” said Jane M. Zhu, MD, an author of the study and assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.
Another recent study that Dr. Zhu coauthored, published in Health Affairs, found that physician practices acquired by PE firms experience greater staff turnover and rely more heavily on advanced practice professionals than doctors.
“To the extent that that turnover indicates physicians are dissatisfied after private equity comes in, that’s really important to investigate further,” Dr. Zhu said.
PE firms owned 4% of U.S. hospitals in 2021 and 11% of nursing homes, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report. The report does not include 2021 data on medical practices but notes that from 2013 to 2016, PE firms acquired at least 2% of physician practices. Estimates of PE deals are probably lower than actual numbers because of the lack of comprehensive information sources, according to the MedPAC report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Most with early AD not eligible for new antiamyloid drugs
Only a small fraction of older adults in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) meet eligibility criteria to receive treatment with newly approved antiamyloid drugs, largely because of the presence of medical conditions or neuroimaging findings, new research shows.
Applying the clinical trial criteria, only about 8%-17% of amyloid-positive individuals with early AD would be eligible for lecanemab (Leqembi), and even fewer, 5%-9%, would be eligible for aducanumab (Aduhelm), the researchers found.
This study highlights the “limited suitability” of most adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia with elevated brain amyloid for treatment with these anti–beta amyloid monoclonal antibodies, write Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, and colleagues with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
The study was published online in Neurology
The authors of an accompanying editorial write that this study “provides an important estimate of treatment eligibility for amyloid-lowering monoclonal antibodies for early AD to help health systems make realistic plans for providing these treatments.”
More real-world data needed
Dr. Vassilaki and colleagues applied eligibility criteria for lecanemab and aducanumab to 237 older adults with MCI or mild dementia and increased brain amyloid burden from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Their mean age was 80.9 years, 55% were men, and most were White.
After applying lecanemab’s inclusion criteria, less than half of the study population was eligible to receive treatment (112 of 237, or 47%).
A total of 21 people were excluded because of a body mass index less than 17 or greater than or equal to 35; 48 due to a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global score other than 0.5 or 1.0; 46 because they did not meet WMS-R Logical Memory II scores for age; 8 because of a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score outside the bounds of 22-30; and two because of a CDR memory score less than 0.5.
Applying lecanemab’s exclusion criteria further narrowed the number of eligible participants from 112 to 19 (8% of 237).
Notable exclusions included cardiopulmonary contraindications, central nervous system–related exclusions such as brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy or brain injury, imaging findings, and history of cancer.
The results were similar for aducanumab, with 104 of the 237 participants (44%) meeting the trial’s inclusion criteria. Applying aducanumab’s exclusion criteria further reduced the number of eligible participants to 12 (5% of 237).
A sensitivity analysis including participants with MCI, without CDR global, MMSE, or WMS-R Logical Memory II score restrictions, resulted in a somewhat higher percentage of eligible participants (17.4% for lecanemab and 8.9% for aducanumab).
Shared decision-making
“Clinicians and health systems should be aware that by applying the clinical trial criteria, a smaller percentage might be eligible for these treatments than originally anticipated,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization. To help clinicians, there are published recommendations for the appropriate use of these treatments, she noted.
Given that clinical trial participants are typically healthier than the general population, Dr. Vassilaki said that research is needed to examine the safety and efficacy of antiamyloid therapies in larger, more diverse populations as well as in less healthy populations, before these therapies may be more widely available to people with AD.
“We can take advantage of the postmarketing surveillance of side effects, and also enrollment of patients receiving these treatments to registries could provide us with data useful for any necessary adjustment to drug use,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization.
‘Sharp focus’
This study “brings the issue of eligibility for amyloid-lowering antibody treatment into sharp focus,” Matthew Howe, MD, PhD, with Butler Hospital Memory & Aging Program, Providence, R.I., and colleagues note in their editorial.
“The results underscore the importance of careful patient selection to help identify patients most likely to benefit from treatment and exclude those at risk for serious outcomes,” they write.
They also write that appropriate use recommendations for lecanemab and aducanumab “will be revisited as more real-world data emerge, especially about safety.”
For now, clinicians “must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” they add.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki has consulted for F. Hoffmann-La Roche and has equity ownership in Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Only a small fraction of older adults in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) meet eligibility criteria to receive treatment with newly approved antiamyloid drugs, largely because of the presence of medical conditions or neuroimaging findings, new research shows.
Applying the clinical trial criteria, only about 8%-17% of amyloid-positive individuals with early AD would be eligible for lecanemab (Leqembi), and even fewer, 5%-9%, would be eligible for aducanumab (Aduhelm), the researchers found.
This study highlights the “limited suitability” of most adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia with elevated brain amyloid for treatment with these anti–beta amyloid monoclonal antibodies, write Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, and colleagues with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
The study was published online in Neurology
The authors of an accompanying editorial write that this study “provides an important estimate of treatment eligibility for amyloid-lowering monoclonal antibodies for early AD to help health systems make realistic plans for providing these treatments.”
More real-world data needed
Dr. Vassilaki and colleagues applied eligibility criteria for lecanemab and aducanumab to 237 older adults with MCI or mild dementia and increased brain amyloid burden from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Their mean age was 80.9 years, 55% were men, and most were White.
After applying lecanemab’s inclusion criteria, less than half of the study population was eligible to receive treatment (112 of 237, or 47%).
A total of 21 people were excluded because of a body mass index less than 17 or greater than or equal to 35; 48 due to a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global score other than 0.5 or 1.0; 46 because they did not meet WMS-R Logical Memory II scores for age; 8 because of a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score outside the bounds of 22-30; and two because of a CDR memory score less than 0.5.
Applying lecanemab’s exclusion criteria further narrowed the number of eligible participants from 112 to 19 (8% of 237).
Notable exclusions included cardiopulmonary contraindications, central nervous system–related exclusions such as brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy or brain injury, imaging findings, and history of cancer.
The results were similar for aducanumab, with 104 of the 237 participants (44%) meeting the trial’s inclusion criteria. Applying aducanumab’s exclusion criteria further reduced the number of eligible participants to 12 (5% of 237).
A sensitivity analysis including participants with MCI, without CDR global, MMSE, or WMS-R Logical Memory II score restrictions, resulted in a somewhat higher percentage of eligible participants (17.4% for lecanemab and 8.9% for aducanumab).
Shared decision-making
“Clinicians and health systems should be aware that by applying the clinical trial criteria, a smaller percentage might be eligible for these treatments than originally anticipated,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization. To help clinicians, there are published recommendations for the appropriate use of these treatments, she noted.
Given that clinical trial participants are typically healthier than the general population, Dr. Vassilaki said that research is needed to examine the safety and efficacy of antiamyloid therapies in larger, more diverse populations as well as in less healthy populations, before these therapies may be more widely available to people with AD.
“We can take advantage of the postmarketing surveillance of side effects, and also enrollment of patients receiving these treatments to registries could provide us with data useful for any necessary adjustment to drug use,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization.
‘Sharp focus’
This study “brings the issue of eligibility for amyloid-lowering antibody treatment into sharp focus,” Matthew Howe, MD, PhD, with Butler Hospital Memory & Aging Program, Providence, R.I., and colleagues note in their editorial.
“The results underscore the importance of careful patient selection to help identify patients most likely to benefit from treatment and exclude those at risk for serious outcomes,” they write.
They also write that appropriate use recommendations for lecanemab and aducanumab “will be revisited as more real-world data emerge, especially about safety.”
For now, clinicians “must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” they add.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki has consulted for F. Hoffmann-La Roche and has equity ownership in Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Only a small fraction of older adults in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) meet eligibility criteria to receive treatment with newly approved antiamyloid drugs, largely because of the presence of medical conditions or neuroimaging findings, new research shows.
Applying the clinical trial criteria, only about 8%-17% of amyloid-positive individuals with early AD would be eligible for lecanemab (Leqembi), and even fewer, 5%-9%, would be eligible for aducanumab (Aduhelm), the researchers found.
This study highlights the “limited suitability” of most adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia with elevated brain amyloid for treatment with these anti–beta amyloid monoclonal antibodies, write Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, and colleagues with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
The study was published online in Neurology
The authors of an accompanying editorial write that this study “provides an important estimate of treatment eligibility for amyloid-lowering monoclonal antibodies for early AD to help health systems make realistic plans for providing these treatments.”
More real-world data needed
Dr. Vassilaki and colleagues applied eligibility criteria for lecanemab and aducanumab to 237 older adults with MCI or mild dementia and increased brain amyloid burden from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Their mean age was 80.9 years, 55% were men, and most were White.
After applying lecanemab’s inclusion criteria, less than half of the study population was eligible to receive treatment (112 of 237, or 47%).
A total of 21 people were excluded because of a body mass index less than 17 or greater than or equal to 35; 48 due to a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global score other than 0.5 or 1.0; 46 because they did not meet WMS-R Logical Memory II scores for age; 8 because of a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score outside the bounds of 22-30; and two because of a CDR memory score less than 0.5.
Applying lecanemab’s exclusion criteria further narrowed the number of eligible participants from 112 to 19 (8% of 237).
Notable exclusions included cardiopulmonary contraindications, central nervous system–related exclusions such as brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy or brain injury, imaging findings, and history of cancer.
The results were similar for aducanumab, with 104 of the 237 participants (44%) meeting the trial’s inclusion criteria. Applying aducanumab’s exclusion criteria further reduced the number of eligible participants to 12 (5% of 237).
A sensitivity analysis including participants with MCI, without CDR global, MMSE, or WMS-R Logical Memory II score restrictions, resulted in a somewhat higher percentage of eligible participants (17.4% for lecanemab and 8.9% for aducanumab).
Shared decision-making
“Clinicians and health systems should be aware that by applying the clinical trial criteria, a smaller percentage might be eligible for these treatments than originally anticipated,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization. To help clinicians, there are published recommendations for the appropriate use of these treatments, she noted.
Given that clinical trial participants are typically healthier than the general population, Dr. Vassilaki said that research is needed to examine the safety and efficacy of antiamyloid therapies in larger, more diverse populations as well as in less healthy populations, before these therapies may be more widely available to people with AD.
“We can take advantage of the postmarketing surveillance of side effects, and also enrollment of patients receiving these treatments to registries could provide us with data useful for any necessary adjustment to drug use,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization.
‘Sharp focus’
This study “brings the issue of eligibility for amyloid-lowering antibody treatment into sharp focus,” Matthew Howe, MD, PhD, with Butler Hospital Memory & Aging Program, Providence, R.I., and colleagues note in their editorial.
“The results underscore the importance of careful patient selection to help identify patients most likely to benefit from treatment and exclude those at risk for serious outcomes,” they write.
They also write that appropriate use recommendations for lecanemab and aducanumab “will be revisited as more real-world data emerge, especially about safety.”
For now, clinicians “must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” they add.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki has consulted for F. Hoffmann-La Roche and has equity ownership in Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Few meet eligibility for newer Alzheimer’s drugs
, a cross sectional study has found.
Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.
“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population
The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).
The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.
For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m2 was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.
When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.
Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.
“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”
Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”
One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment
In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
, a cross sectional study has found.
Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.
“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population
The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).
The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.
For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m2 was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.
When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.
Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.
“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”
Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”
One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment
In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
, a cross sectional study has found.
Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.
“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population
The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).
The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.
For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m2 was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.
When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.
Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.
“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”
Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”
One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment
In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
FROM NEUROLOGY