User login
The Official Newspaper of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery
Onecount Call To Arms
Florida health officials prepare for Hurricane Irma
As Irma, the most powerful Atlantic hurricane in recorded history, approaches south Florida, the state’s Department of Health is moving quickly to prepare.
Once Gov. Rick Scott (R) declared a state of emergency in all 67 counties Sept. 4, the department swung into action.
“Florida has a robust emergency operation system and once activated, Florida Department of Health is the lead for State Emergency Function 8 or ESF-8. Hospital evacuations, special needs sheltering, and other tasks are coordinated through that function,” Mara Gambineri, communications director for the department, said in an interview. “We have plans in place and exercise those frequently to prepare for these situations.”
Hospitals near Miami are putting together skeleton crews, making sure there will be adequate personnel for the height of the storm.
“All the hospitals are going into this type of military, alpha team, bravo team approach,” Rodolfo Oviedo, MD, FACS, assistant professor of surgery at Florida State University and surgical fellow at Baptist Hospital of Miami, said in an interview. “We’ll have one specialist per specialty, and we’ll have emergency medical technicians volunteering as well.”
Despite the forecast of Hurricane Irma’s size and strength, Dr. Oviedo said that he is not concerned about local hospitals succumbing to the storm or being caught unprepared.
“This is a city that is used to this, they all have plenty of experience with hurricanes,” Dr. Oviedo said. “These buildings are built to withstand hurricanes, especially the hospitals, and even the older hospitals have been renovated for that.”
Florida adopted new building codes to improve hurricane resilience, including special exterior glazing that can handle high winds, after Hurricane Andrew tore across the state in 1992.
Others already have started to look ahead to when after the storm has passed. The Red Cross is issuing volunteer applications for Irma relief, and has committed to sending enough supplies to shelter 120,000 people by Sept. 8-9, according to a Red Cross update.
FEMA Administrator Brock Long noted that despite the intense recovery efforts ongoing in Texas and Louisiana from Hurricane Harvey, his agency is primed to assist with the impact of Hurricane Irma as well.
“We’re not going to let money get in the way of saving lives,” Mr. Long said in an interview on “CBS This Morning” Sept. 6.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) on Sept. 6 requested that additional FEMA funding be added to the Hurricane Harvey disaster relief package currently being considered by Congress.
Floridians “need to know that the federal government is both ready and willing to direct the necessary resources needed to help them in the recovery process,” the senators wrote in a joint letter to Senate leaders. “We strongly urge you to include additional funding in the Hurricane Harvey aid package to account for the additional costs FEMA will likely incur responding to Hurricane Irma.”
At press time, Hurricane Irma was expected to make landfall in south Florida on Sept. 10.
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
As Irma, the most powerful Atlantic hurricane in recorded history, approaches south Florida, the state’s Department of Health is moving quickly to prepare.
Once Gov. Rick Scott (R) declared a state of emergency in all 67 counties Sept. 4, the department swung into action.
“Florida has a robust emergency operation system and once activated, Florida Department of Health is the lead for State Emergency Function 8 or ESF-8. Hospital evacuations, special needs sheltering, and other tasks are coordinated through that function,” Mara Gambineri, communications director for the department, said in an interview. “We have plans in place and exercise those frequently to prepare for these situations.”
Hospitals near Miami are putting together skeleton crews, making sure there will be adequate personnel for the height of the storm.
“All the hospitals are going into this type of military, alpha team, bravo team approach,” Rodolfo Oviedo, MD, FACS, assistant professor of surgery at Florida State University and surgical fellow at Baptist Hospital of Miami, said in an interview. “We’ll have one specialist per specialty, and we’ll have emergency medical technicians volunteering as well.”
Despite the forecast of Hurricane Irma’s size and strength, Dr. Oviedo said that he is not concerned about local hospitals succumbing to the storm or being caught unprepared.
“This is a city that is used to this, they all have plenty of experience with hurricanes,” Dr. Oviedo said. “These buildings are built to withstand hurricanes, especially the hospitals, and even the older hospitals have been renovated for that.”
Florida adopted new building codes to improve hurricane resilience, including special exterior glazing that can handle high winds, after Hurricane Andrew tore across the state in 1992.
Others already have started to look ahead to when after the storm has passed. The Red Cross is issuing volunteer applications for Irma relief, and has committed to sending enough supplies to shelter 120,000 people by Sept. 8-9, according to a Red Cross update.
FEMA Administrator Brock Long noted that despite the intense recovery efforts ongoing in Texas and Louisiana from Hurricane Harvey, his agency is primed to assist with the impact of Hurricane Irma as well.
“We’re not going to let money get in the way of saving lives,” Mr. Long said in an interview on “CBS This Morning” Sept. 6.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) on Sept. 6 requested that additional FEMA funding be added to the Hurricane Harvey disaster relief package currently being considered by Congress.
Floridians “need to know that the federal government is both ready and willing to direct the necessary resources needed to help them in the recovery process,” the senators wrote in a joint letter to Senate leaders. “We strongly urge you to include additional funding in the Hurricane Harvey aid package to account for the additional costs FEMA will likely incur responding to Hurricane Irma.”
At press time, Hurricane Irma was expected to make landfall in south Florida on Sept. 10.
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
As Irma, the most powerful Atlantic hurricane in recorded history, approaches south Florida, the state’s Department of Health is moving quickly to prepare.
Once Gov. Rick Scott (R) declared a state of emergency in all 67 counties Sept. 4, the department swung into action.
“Florida has a robust emergency operation system and once activated, Florida Department of Health is the lead for State Emergency Function 8 or ESF-8. Hospital evacuations, special needs sheltering, and other tasks are coordinated through that function,” Mara Gambineri, communications director for the department, said in an interview. “We have plans in place and exercise those frequently to prepare for these situations.”
Hospitals near Miami are putting together skeleton crews, making sure there will be adequate personnel for the height of the storm.
“All the hospitals are going into this type of military, alpha team, bravo team approach,” Rodolfo Oviedo, MD, FACS, assistant professor of surgery at Florida State University and surgical fellow at Baptist Hospital of Miami, said in an interview. “We’ll have one specialist per specialty, and we’ll have emergency medical technicians volunteering as well.”
Despite the forecast of Hurricane Irma’s size and strength, Dr. Oviedo said that he is not concerned about local hospitals succumbing to the storm or being caught unprepared.
“This is a city that is used to this, they all have plenty of experience with hurricanes,” Dr. Oviedo said. “These buildings are built to withstand hurricanes, especially the hospitals, and even the older hospitals have been renovated for that.”
Florida adopted new building codes to improve hurricane resilience, including special exterior glazing that can handle high winds, after Hurricane Andrew tore across the state in 1992.
Others already have started to look ahead to when after the storm has passed. The Red Cross is issuing volunteer applications for Irma relief, and has committed to sending enough supplies to shelter 120,000 people by Sept. 8-9, according to a Red Cross update.
FEMA Administrator Brock Long noted that despite the intense recovery efforts ongoing in Texas and Louisiana from Hurricane Harvey, his agency is primed to assist with the impact of Hurricane Irma as well.
“We’re not going to let money get in the way of saving lives,” Mr. Long said in an interview on “CBS This Morning” Sept. 6.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) on Sept. 6 requested that additional FEMA funding be added to the Hurricane Harvey disaster relief package currently being considered by Congress.
Floridians “need to know that the federal government is both ready and willing to direct the necessary resources needed to help them in the recovery process,” the senators wrote in a joint letter to Senate leaders. “We strongly urge you to include additional funding in the Hurricane Harvey aid package to account for the additional costs FEMA will likely incur responding to Hurricane Irma.”
At press time, Hurricane Irma was expected to make landfall in south Florida on Sept. 10.
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
Ivabradine cut mortality in HFrEF patients not on beta-blocker
BARCELONA – The time is right for a placebo-controlled, randomized trial of ivabradine in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who are unwilling or unable to take a beta-blocker as recommended in the guidelines, John G.F. Cleland, MD, asserted at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
He cited as the rationale for such a study a new post-hoc analysis of data from the SHIFT trial showing that ivabradine (Corlanor) significantly reduced both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, as well as hospitalizations for heart failure, in the subset of study participants who weren’t on beta-blocker therapy.
“I think there would be ethical equipoise,” he added. “If patients are unwilling or unable to take a beta-blocker, or their cardiologist feels it’s not in their best interest, then I certainly think a placebo-controlled trial would not only be appropriate, but there’s also an onus on the cardiology community to do such a trial.”
Ivabradine slows heart rate by a unique mechanism that doesn’t involve blockade of adrenergic receptors. In the SHIFT trial (Lancet. 2010 Sep 11;376[9744]:875-85), more than 6,500 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in sinus rhythm and with a heart rate greater than 70 bpm were randomized to ivabradine or placebo on top of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure. During a median 23 months of follow-up, heart failure hospitalizations were significantly reduced by 26% in the ivabradine group, although cardiovascular deaths were not significantly affected.
As a result of the SHIFT findings, the drug was approved with an indication for use only in combination with a beta-blocker in patients with HFrEF whose on-treatment heart rate exceeds 70 bpm. Ivabradine is not currently recommended as an alternative to beta-blocker therapy. However, in real-world clinical practice a large number of heart failure patients are not managed with a beta-blocker, the cardiologist noted.
His post-hoc analysis focused on the 685 SHIFT participants who were not on a beta-blocker at randomization. During follow-up, there were 93 deaths among patients who were on placebo and only 71 in those randomized to ivabradine, for a statistically significant 30% reduction in all-cause mortality. Cardiovascular mortality was reduced to a similar extent. These hazard ratios remained similar after adjusting for differences in heart rate and other clinical characteristics.
“Beta-blockers are a highly effective therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but the mechanism of benefit remains uncertain. It might simply be due to heart rate reduction. And I would point out that we have no evidence of a dose response for beta-blockers: It may well be that you get most of the effect of a beta-blocker with the lowest dose. Titrating to the full dose of a beta-blocker might only be helpful in that it lowers your heart rate. I would argue that 6.25 mg/day of carvedilol plus ivabradine might be as good as 50 mg twice daily of carvedilol but with much higher patient acceptability. We don’t know,” said Dr. Cleland.
“This is an interesting, hypothesis-generating analysis, and we need confirmation now that ivabradine reduces mortality in heart failure patients who are unwilling or unable to take a beta-blocker,” he concluded.
The SHIFT trial was sponsored by Servier. Dr. Cleland reported serving as a consultant to and receiving research funding from that company and others.
BARCELONA – The time is right for a placebo-controlled, randomized trial of ivabradine in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who are unwilling or unable to take a beta-blocker as recommended in the guidelines, John G.F. Cleland, MD, asserted at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
He cited as the rationale for such a study a new post-hoc analysis of data from the SHIFT trial showing that ivabradine (Corlanor) significantly reduced both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, as well as hospitalizations for heart failure, in the subset of study participants who weren’t on beta-blocker therapy.
“I think there would be ethical equipoise,” he added. “If patients are unwilling or unable to take a beta-blocker, or their cardiologist feels it’s not in their best interest, then I certainly think a placebo-controlled trial would not only be appropriate, but there’s also an onus on the cardiology community to do such a trial.”
Ivabradine slows heart rate by a unique mechanism that doesn’t involve blockade of adrenergic receptors. In the SHIFT trial (Lancet. 2010 Sep 11;376[9744]:875-85), more than 6,500 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in sinus rhythm and with a heart rate greater than 70 bpm were randomized to ivabradine or placebo on top of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure. During a median 23 months of follow-up, heart failure hospitalizations were significantly reduced by 26% in the ivabradine group, although cardiovascular deaths were not significantly affected.
As a result of the SHIFT findings, the drug was approved with an indication for use only in combination with a beta-blocker in patients with HFrEF whose on-treatment heart rate exceeds 70 bpm. Ivabradine is not currently recommended as an alternative to beta-blocker therapy. However, in real-world clinical practice a large number of heart failure patients are not managed with a beta-blocker, the cardiologist noted.
His post-hoc analysis focused on the 685 SHIFT participants who were not on a beta-blocker at randomization. During follow-up, there were 93 deaths among patients who were on placebo and only 71 in those randomized to ivabradine, for a statistically significant 30% reduction in all-cause mortality. Cardiovascular mortality was reduced to a similar extent. These hazard ratios remained similar after adjusting for differences in heart rate and other clinical characteristics.
“Beta-blockers are a highly effective therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but the mechanism of benefit remains uncertain. It might simply be due to heart rate reduction. And I would point out that we have no evidence of a dose response for beta-blockers: It may well be that you get most of the effect of a beta-blocker with the lowest dose. Titrating to the full dose of a beta-blocker might only be helpful in that it lowers your heart rate. I would argue that 6.25 mg/day of carvedilol plus ivabradine might be as good as 50 mg twice daily of carvedilol but with much higher patient acceptability. We don’t know,” said Dr. Cleland.
“This is an interesting, hypothesis-generating analysis, and we need confirmation now that ivabradine reduces mortality in heart failure patients who are unwilling or unable to take a beta-blocker,” he concluded.
The SHIFT trial was sponsored by Servier. Dr. Cleland reported serving as a consultant to and receiving research funding from that company and others.
BARCELONA – The time is right for a placebo-controlled, randomized trial of ivabradine in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who are unwilling or unable to take a beta-blocker as recommended in the guidelines, John G.F. Cleland, MD, asserted at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
He cited as the rationale for such a study a new post-hoc analysis of data from the SHIFT trial showing that ivabradine (Corlanor) significantly reduced both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, as well as hospitalizations for heart failure, in the subset of study participants who weren’t on beta-blocker therapy.
“I think there would be ethical equipoise,” he added. “If patients are unwilling or unable to take a beta-blocker, or their cardiologist feels it’s not in their best interest, then I certainly think a placebo-controlled trial would not only be appropriate, but there’s also an onus on the cardiology community to do such a trial.”
Ivabradine slows heart rate by a unique mechanism that doesn’t involve blockade of adrenergic receptors. In the SHIFT trial (Lancet. 2010 Sep 11;376[9744]:875-85), more than 6,500 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in sinus rhythm and with a heart rate greater than 70 bpm were randomized to ivabradine or placebo on top of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure. During a median 23 months of follow-up, heart failure hospitalizations were significantly reduced by 26% in the ivabradine group, although cardiovascular deaths were not significantly affected.
As a result of the SHIFT findings, the drug was approved with an indication for use only in combination with a beta-blocker in patients with HFrEF whose on-treatment heart rate exceeds 70 bpm. Ivabradine is not currently recommended as an alternative to beta-blocker therapy. However, in real-world clinical practice a large number of heart failure patients are not managed with a beta-blocker, the cardiologist noted.
His post-hoc analysis focused on the 685 SHIFT participants who were not on a beta-blocker at randomization. During follow-up, there were 93 deaths among patients who were on placebo and only 71 in those randomized to ivabradine, for a statistically significant 30% reduction in all-cause mortality. Cardiovascular mortality was reduced to a similar extent. These hazard ratios remained similar after adjusting for differences in heart rate and other clinical characteristics.
“Beta-blockers are a highly effective therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but the mechanism of benefit remains uncertain. It might simply be due to heart rate reduction. And I would point out that we have no evidence of a dose response for beta-blockers: It may well be that you get most of the effect of a beta-blocker with the lowest dose. Titrating to the full dose of a beta-blocker might only be helpful in that it lowers your heart rate. I would argue that 6.25 mg/day of carvedilol plus ivabradine might be as good as 50 mg twice daily of carvedilol but with much higher patient acceptability. We don’t know,” said Dr. Cleland.
“This is an interesting, hypothesis-generating analysis, and we need confirmation now that ivabradine reduces mortality in heart failure patients who are unwilling or unable to take a beta-blocker,” he concluded.
The SHIFT trial was sponsored by Servier. Dr. Cleland reported serving as a consultant to and receiving research funding from that company and others.
AT THE ESC CONGRESS 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: All-cause mortality was reduced by 30%, compared with placebo, in ivabradine-treated patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were not on a beta-blocker.
Data source: A post-hoc analysis of the 685 patients in a much larger randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of ivabradine in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
Disclosures: The SHIFT trial was funded by Servier. The presenter reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of research grants from that and other companies.
Sen. Alexander seeks quick, passable steps to stabilize individual markets
WASHINGTON – Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) wants two quick fixes to stabilize the individual health insurance market so that Congress can come together to craft a long-term solution.
There seems to be “general consensus that we should see what can we do, No. 1, on the cost-sharing payments and, No. 2, on amending 1332 [waiver program] to provide flexibility to the states,” Sen. Alexander*, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee said Sept. 6 after the first of four hearings the committee is holding on creating stability for the individual health insurance market.
Chairman Alexander said that he hopes to have a small, passable legislative proposal ready by Sept. 14, in time to allow insurers to make last-minute adjustments to their individual market bids, which are due to state insurance commissioners by Sept. 20.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee’s ranking member, stressed the urgent need to pass a quick fix, noting that insurance premiums could rise as much as 20% higher than they would have, if there is no guarantee on the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments.
A panel of state insurance commissioners all agreed with the two proposals, though there were suggestions that the CSR payments should be guaranteed for at least a year, if not longer, beyond 2018, which was when Chairman Alexander suggested the guarantee should sunset.
“The CSR funding issue is the single most critical issue you can address to help stabilize insurance markets in 2018,” Julie Mix McPeak, commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, testified at the hearing. She emphasized that it is not an insurance bailout. “CSR funding ensures that some of our most vulnerable consumers receive assistance for copays and deductibles that are required to be paid under federal law and has the effect of reducing proposed premium increases and has a direct impact on the amount of subsidy assistance provided by the federal government.”
“You must permanently fund the cost-sharing reduction payments,” Mike Kreidler, insurance commissioner for the state of Washington, testified during the hearing. “That is something that is going help a great deal in our marketplace.”
The commissioners also advocated for a reinsurance program.
Ms. McPeak called for Congress to “establish a reinsurance mechanism that would stop losses for individual claims at a specified amount to increase market participation by carriers. For the most immediate impact, this backstop mechanism must be federal, as it would be impossible for many states to develop such a program for the 2018 plan year.”
“I urge you to create a federal reinsurance program this year,” Mr. Kreidler said. “Doing this would show your commitment to stabilizing the market. They worked very well in the state of Washington for the first 3 years we had a reinsurance program. We would like to see it continue and go forward.”
In talking about fixing 1332 waivers, which allow states to develop a specific proposal that works within the parameters of the Affordable Care Act but offers flexibility to create programs that are unique to a state’s needs, Lori Wing-Heier, director of the Alaska Division of Insurance talked about her state’s successful efforts to get a wavier for its reinsurance program.
“The waiver process is somewhat onerous in the fact that there is not a defined application to submit,” Ms. Wing-Heier said, leaving it up to states to make sure they are providing all the requested information. “After that, the part that is stifling states right now is the 6-month waiting period before they receive final approval.”
Other issues were raised by both panelists and senators, including the cost of delivering health care, the cost of prescription drugs, and cuts to marketing budgets, but Chairman Alexander said that he did not want to expand a proposal beyond his two points.
“My whole focus right now is: What can we do to take a couple of steps to stabilize the individual market?” he said, although he suggested that if there were clear consensus on other aspects, they could be considered.
The archived hearing can be viewed on the committee’s website.
CORRECTION, 9/8/17: An earlier version of this story misidentified the HELP Committee chairman.
WASHINGTON – Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) wants two quick fixes to stabilize the individual health insurance market so that Congress can come together to craft a long-term solution.
There seems to be “general consensus that we should see what can we do, No. 1, on the cost-sharing payments and, No. 2, on amending 1332 [waiver program] to provide flexibility to the states,” Sen. Alexander*, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee said Sept. 6 after the first of four hearings the committee is holding on creating stability for the individual health insurance market.
Chairman Alexander said that he hopes to have a small, passable legislative proposal ready by Sept. 14, in time to allow insurers to make last-minute adjustments to their individual market bids, which are due to state insurance commissioners by Sept. 20.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee’s ranking member, stressed the urgent need to pass a quick fix, noting that insurance premiums could rise as much as 20% higher than they would have, if there is no guarantee on the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments.
A panel of state insurance commissioners all agreed with the two proposals, though there were suggestions that the CSR payments should be guaranteed for at least a year, if not longer, beyond 2018, which was when Chairman Alexander suggested the guarantee should sunset.
“The CSR funding issue is the single most critical issue you can address to help stabilize insurance markets in 2018,” Julie Mix McPeak, commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, testified at the hearing. She emphasized that it is not an insurance bailout. “CSR funding ensures that some of our most vulnerable consumers receive assistance for copays and deductibles that are required to be paid under federal law and has the effect of reducing proposed premium increases and has a direct impact on the amount of subsidy assistance provided by the federal government.”
“You must permanently fund the cost-sharing reduction payments,” Mike Kreidler, insurance commissioner for the state of Washington, testified during the hearing. “That is something that is going help a great deal in our marketplace.”
The commissioners also advocated for a reinsurance program.
Ms. McPeak called for Congress to “establish a reinsurance mechanism that would stop losses for individual claims at a specified amount to increase market participation by carriers. For the most immediate impact, this backstop mechanism must be federal, as it would be impossible for many states to develop such a program for the 2018 plan year.”
“I urge you to create a federal reinsurance program this year,” Mr. Kreidler said. “Doing this would show your commitment to stabilizing the market. They worked very well in the state of Washington for the first 3 years we had a reinsurance program. We would like to see it continue and go forward.”
In talking about fixing 1332 waivers, which allow states to develop a specific proposal that works within the parameters of the Affordable Care Act but offers flexibility to create programs that are unique to a state’s needs, Lori Wing-Heier, director of the Alaska Division of Insurance talked about her state’s successful efforts to get a wavier for its reinsurance program.
“The waiver process is somewhat onerous in the fact that there is not a defined application to submit,” Ms. Wing-Heier said, leaving it up to states to make sure they are providing all the requested information. “After that, the part that is stifling states right now is the 6-month waiting period before they receive final approval.”
Other issues were raised by both panelists and senators, including the cost of delivering health care, the cost of prescription drugs, and cuts to marketing budgets, but Chairman Alexander said that he did not want to expand a proposal beyond his two points.
“My whole focus right now is: What can we do to take a couple of steps to stabilize the individual market?” he said, although he suggested that if there were clear consensus on other aspects, they could be considered.
The archived hearing can be viewed on the committee’s website.
CORRECTION, 9/8/17: An earlier version of this story misidentified the HELP Committee chairman.
WASHINGTON – Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) wants two quick fixes to stabilize the individual health insurance market so that Congress can come together to craft a long-term solution.
There seems to be “general consensus that we should see what can we do, No. 1, on the cost-sharing payments and, No. 2, on amending 1332 [waiver program] to provide flexibility to the states,” Sen. Alexander*, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee said Sept. 6 after the first of four hearings the committee is holding on creating stability for the individual health insurance market.
Chairman Alexander said that he hopes to have a small, passable legislative proposal ready by Sept. 14, in time to allow insurers to make last-minute adjustments to their individual market bids, which are due to state insurance commissioners by Sept. 20.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee’s ranking member, stressed the urgent need to pass a quick fix, noting that insurance premiums could rise as much as 20% higher than they would have, if there is no guarantee on the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments.
A panel of state insurance commissioners all agreed with the two proposals, though there were suggestions that the CSR payments should be guaranteed for at least a year, if not longer, beyond 2018, which was when Chairman Alexander suggested the guarantee should sunset.
“The CSR funding issue is the single most critical issue you can address to help stabilize insurance markets in 2018,” Julie Mix McPeak, commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, testified at the hearing. She emphasized that it is not an insurance bailout. “CSR funding ensures that some of our most vulnerable consumers receive assistance for copays and deductibles that are required to be paid under federal law and has the effect of reducing proposed premium increases and has a direct impact on the amount of subsidy assistance provided by the federal government.”
“You must permanently fund the cost-sharing reduction payments,” Mike Kreidler, insurance commissioner for the state of Washington, testified during the hearing. “That is something that is going help a great deal in our marketplace.”
The commissioners also advocated for a reinsurance program.
Ms. McPeak called for Congress to “establish a reinsurance mechanism that would stop losses for individual claims at a specified amount to increase market participation by carriers. For the most immediate impact, this backstop mechanism must be federal, as it would be impossible for many states to develop such a program for the 2018 plan year.”
“I urge you to create a federal reinsurance program this year,” Mr. Kreidler said. “Doing this would show your commitment to stabilizing the market. They worked very well in the state of Washington for the first 3 years we had a reinsurance program. We would like to see it continue and go forward.”
In talking about fixing 1332 waivers, which allow states to develop a specific proposal that works within the parameters of the Affordable Care Act but offers flexibility to create programs that are unique to a state’s needs, Lori Wing-Heier, director of the Alaska Division of Insurance talked about her state’s successful efforts to get a wavier for its reinsurance program.
“The waiver process is somewhat onerous in the fact that there is not a defined application to submit,” Ms. Wing-Heier said, leaving it up to states to make sure they are providing all the requested information. “After that, the part that is stifling states right now is the 6-month waiting period before they receive final approval.”
Other issues were raised by both panelists and senators, including the cost of delivering health care, the cost of prescription drugs, and cuts to marketing budgets, but Chairman Alexander said that he did not want to expand a proposal beyond his two points.
“My whole focus right now is: What can we do to take a couple of steps to stabilize the individual market?” he said, although he suggested that if there were clear consensus on other aspects, they could be considered.
The archived hearing can be viewed on the committee’s website.
CORRECTION, 9/8/17: An earlier version of this story misidentified the HELP Committee chairman.
AT A SENATE HELP COMMITTEE HEARING
Hurricane Harvey tests Houston physicians’ mettle
As Houston-area citizens evacuated or hunkered down at home in anticipation of Hurricane Harvey, doctors like Mary L. Brandt, MD, FACS, packed a bag and headed to work.
“I came in on Saturday morning [Aug. 23] – I was on call – and so I packed a big suitcase and a big bag of food because I anticipated I would be here until Thursday,” Dr. Brandt said in an interview, “So I became part of the ‘ride-out crew.’ ”
Hospitals were hit hard by Hurricane Harvey, and many struggled against the effects of the Category 4 storm, which made landfall then stalled over Texas for almost a week, pummeling the area.
“We all know this [flooding] could happen, so all the facilities in the medical center have flood gates, and generators are out of the basement so that there is not any risk of losing all electricity, but then the issue becomes the staff,” Dr. Brandt said. “They can’t get to and from the facility, and that’s particularly true if they live in the periphery of Houston, which is common.”
The situation was the same for many area hospitals. Just 2 miles away from Texas Children’s Hospital, SreyRam Kuy, MD, FACS, associate chief of staff at the Michael E DeBakey VA Medical Center, and her colleagues prepared to run the hospital with a skeleton crew.
“We were preparing when it was still a tropical storm, and we talked to the staff ahead of time to let them know this would be a marathon, not a sprint,” Dr. Kuy said in an interview. “We had people staying in the hospital ahead of time because we were worried that when the hurricane hit, we would not be able to have people return.”
But when Harvey made landfall with Category 4 intensity, many medical facilities were caught by surprise.
“We didn’t know how bad it would be, I honestly don’t think anyone in the city or the state had any idea of how tremendous the impact would be, particularly with the flooding,” Dr. Kuy said. “We had staff going 5, 6 days here at the hospital, working continuously, sleeping on the floor, and because of that, we were able to perform multiple emergency surgeries during the disaster, including laparoscopic treatment of ruptured appendicitis and replacement of an infection aortic graft, which required massive transfusion.” The VA hospital broke from its core mission of caring for veterans, treating “homeless folks and nonveterans who were brought here by the Coast Guard, or the ambulances, or by air.”
At Texas Children’s Hospital, Dr. Brandt and her colleagues were dealing with similar situations, staying on their feet and moving quickly as rescued patients arrived by air.
“We were near the area that was flooding really terribly, and so the Coast Guard had been coming in and bringing kids,” Dr. Brandt said. “Sometimes, we knew what was coming and sometimes we didn’t. It was pretty much controlled chaos.”
Staff shared responsibilities, often taking on tasks far outside their usual roles.
“We didn’t have enough people working the cafeteria, and so, at one point, I put on my hair net, grabbed a ladle, and served in the lunch line,” Dr. Kuy said.
Throughout the storm and flooding, medical professionals fought through exhaustion and depleting supplies, all with little or no knowledge of how their own homes and families were faring.
“We had people here for so long, and they had no idea what was happening in their own homes,” Dr. Kuy said. “They were watching on the news, seeing the reports and watching their own neighborhoods flooded.”
Dr. Brandt and her colleagues would watch as reports came in of what was happening beyond the hospital walls.
“We have some meeting areas, we would watch the weather together and that goes from the janitors to the head of the hospital who was in the hospital with us,” she said.
Despite the chaos outside, morale did not waiver for either Dr. Kuy’s or Dr. Brandt’s crew.
“I remember walking throughout the hospital, doing my rounds, checking up on the units. I went to talk with some of the staff nurses, and what struck me was as I walk in I see these big smiles on their faces, I absolutely did not expect that,” Dr. Kuy said. “They had been in the hospital for 5 days, they were exhausted. It just makes me so proud to serve along these kinds of people.”
As travel became possible, Dr. Kuy and other area physicians – as well as volunteers from across the country – began to shift their focus to evacuation shelters, treating ambulatory patients there.
“The response has been phenomenal,” said Dr. Kuy. “I met an ER doctor from North Carolina who came to volunteer, we have FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] doctors from all across the state, and then of course, all the people from the different VA [hospitals].”
Pediatricians have sent their support as well, offering time and supplies to help take care of the patients at Texas Children’s Hospital, Dr. Brandt said.
At presstime, volunteers were still needed. The Texas Department of State Health Services opened a web portal for volunteer opportunities, and lifted restriction on out-of-state doctors from practicing medicine without state registration.
While there is still much that needs to be done to recover, those on the ground said that they feel an overwhelming feeling of community as people face what will inevitably be a tough road ahead.
“Houston has a reputation and a culture of helping neighbors and it has been astounding to watch what’s happening,” said Dr. Brandt. “No matter how tired people are or how stressful any cases are, everyone’s morale stays high.”
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
As Houston-area citizens evacuated or hunkered down at home in anticipation of Hurricane Harvey, doctors like Mary L. Brandt, MD, FACS, packed a bag and headed to work.
“I came in on Saturday morning [Aug. 23] – I was on call – and so I packed a big suitcase and a big bag of food because I anticipated I would be here until Thursday,” Dr. Brandt said in an interview, “So I became part of the ‘ride-out crew.’ ”
Hospitals were hit hard by Hurricane Harvey, and many struggled against the effects of the Category 4 storm, which made landfall then stalled over Texas for almost a week, pummeling the area.
“We all know this [flooding] could happen, so all the facilities in the medical center have flood gates, and generators are out of the basement so that there is not any risk of losing all electricity, but then the issue becomes the staff,” Dr. Brandt said. “They can’t get to and from the facility, and that’s particularly true if they live in the periphery of Houston, which is common.”
The situation was the same for many area hospitals. Just 2 miles away from Texas Children’s Hospital, SreyRam Kuy, MD, FACS, associate chief of staff at the Michael E DeBakey VA Medical Center, and her colleagues prepared to run the hospital with a skeleton crew.
“We were preparing when it was still a tropical storm, and we talked to the staff ahead of time to let them know this would be a marathon, not a sprint,” Dr. Kuy said in an interview. “We had people staying in the hospital ahead of time because we were worried that when the hurricane hit, we would not be able to have people return.”
But when Harvey made landfall with Category 4 intensity, many medical facilities were caught by surprise.
“We didn’t know how bad it would be, I honestly don’t think anyone in the city or the state had any idea of how tremendous the impact would be, particularly with the flooding,” Dr. Kuy said. “We had staff going 5, 6 days here at the hospital, working continuously, sleeping on the floor, and because of that, we were able to perform multiple emergency surgeries during the disaster, including laparoscopic treatment of ruptured appendicitis and replacement of an infection aortic graft, which required massive transfusion.” The VA hospital broke from its core mission of caring for veterans, treating “homeless folks and nonveterans who were brought here by the Coast Guard, or the ambulances, or by air.”
At Texas Children’s Hospital, Dr. Brandt and her colleagues were dealing with similar situations, staying on their feet and moving quickly as rescued patients arrived by air.
“We were near the area that was flooding really terribly, and so the Coast Guard had been coming in and bringing kids,” Dr. Brandt said. “Sometimes, we knew what was coming and sometimes we didn’t. It was pretty much controlled chaos.”
Staff shared responsibilities, often taking on tasks far outside their usual roles.
“We didn’t have enough people working the cafeteria, and so, at one point, I put on my hair net, grabbed a ladle, and served in the lunch line,” Dr. Kuy said.
Throughout the storm and flooding, medical professionals fought through exhaustion and depleting supplies, all with little or no knowledge of how their own homes and families were faring.
“We had people here for so long, and they had no idea what was happening in their own homes,” Dr. Kuy said. “They were watching on the news, seeing the reports and watching their own neighborhoods flooded.”
Dr. Brandt and her colleagues would watch as reports came in of what was happening beyond the hospital walls.
“We have some meeting areas, we would watch the weather together and that goes from the janitors to the head of the hospital who was in the hospital with us,” she said.
Despite the chaos outside, morale did not waiver for either Dr. Kuy’s or Dr. Brandt’s crew.
“I remember walking throughout the hospital, doing my rounds, checking up on the units. I went to talk with some of the staff nurses, and what struck me was as I walk in I see these big smiles on their faces, I absolutely did not expect that,” Dr. Kuy said. “They had been in the hospital for 5 days, they were exhausted. It just makes me so proud to serve along these kinds of people.”
As travel became possible, Dr. Kuy and other area physicians – as well as volunteers from across the country – began to shift their focus to evacuation shelters, treating ambulatory patients there.
“The response has been phenomenal,” said Dr. Kuy. “I met an ER doctor from North Carolina who came to volunteer, we have FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] doctors from all across the state, and then of course, all the people from the different VA [hospitals].”
Pediatricians have sent their support as well, offering time and supplies to help take care of the patients at Texas Children’s Hospital, Dr. Brandt said.
At presstime, volunteers were still needed. The Texas Department of State Health Services opened a web portal for volunteer opportunities, and lifted restriction on out-of-state doctors from practicing medicine without state registration.
While there is still much that needs to be done to recover, those on the ground said that they feel an overwhelming feeling of community as people face what will inevitably be a tough road ahead.
“Houston has a reputation and a culture of helping neighbors and it has been astounding to watch what’s happening,” said Dr. Brandt. “No matter how tired people are or how stressful any cases are, everyone’s morale stays high.”
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
As Houston-area citizens evacuated or hunkered down at home in anticipation of Hurricane Harvey, doctors like Mary L. Brandt, MD, FACS, packed a bag and headed to work.
“I came in on Saturday morning [Aug. 23] – I was on call – and so I packed a big suitcase and a big bag of food because I anticipated I would be here until Thursday,” Dr. Brandt said in an interview, “So I became part of the ‘ride-out crew.’ ”
Hospitals were hit hard by Hurricane Harvey, and many struggled against the effects of the Category 4 storm, which made landfall then stalled over Texas for almost a week, pummeling the area.
“We all know this [flooding] could happen, so all the facilities in the medical center have flood gates, and generators are out of the basement so that there is not any risk of losing all electricity, but then the issue becomes the staff,” Dr. Brandt said. “They can’t get to and from the facility, and that’s particularly true if they live in the periphery of Houston, which is common.”
The situation was the same for many area hospitals. Just 2 miles away from Texas Children’s Hospital, SreyRam Kuy, MD, FACS, associate chief of staff at the Michael E DeBakey VA Medical Center, and her colleagues prepared to run the hospital with a skeleton crew.
“We were preparing when it was still a tropical storm, and we talked to the staff ahead of time to let them know this would be a marathon, not a sprint,” Dr. Kuy said in an interview. “We had people staying in the hospital ahead of time because we were worried that when the hurricane hit, we would not be able to have people return.”
But when Harvey made landfall with Category 4 intensity, many medical facilities were caught by surprise.
“We didn’t know how bad it would be, I honestly don’t think anyone in the city or the state had any idea of how tremendous the impact would be, particularly with the flooding,” Dr. Kuy said. “We had staff going 5, 6 days here at the hospital, working continuously, sleeping on the floor, and because of that, we were able to perform multiple emergency surgeries during the disaster, including laparoscopic treatment of ruptured appendicitis and replacement of an infection aortic graft, which required massive transfusion.” The VA hospital broke from its core mission of caring for veterans, treating “homeless folks and nonveterans who were brought here by the Coast Guard, or the ambulances, or by air.”
At Texas Children’s Hospital, Dr. Brandt and her colleagues were dealing with similar situations, staying on their feet and moving quickly as rescued patients arrived by air.
“We were near the area that was flooding really terribly, and so the Coast Guard had been coming in and bringing kids,” Dr. Brandt said. “Sometimes, we knew what was coming and sometimes we didn’t. It was pretty much controlled chaos.”
Staff shared responsibilities, often taking on tasks far outside their usual roles.
“We didn’t have enough people working the cafeteria, and so, at one point, I put on my hair net, grabbed a ladle, and served in the lunch line,” Dr. Kuy said.
Throughout the storm and flooding, medical professionals fought through exhaustion and depleting supplies, all with little or no knowledge of how their own homes and families were faring.
“We had people here for so long, and they had no idea what was happening in their own homes,” Dr. Kuy said. “They were watching on the news, seeing the reports and watching their own neighborhoods flooded.”
Dr. Brandt and her colleagues would watch as reports came in of what was happening beyond the hospital walls.
“We have some meeting areas, we would watch the weather together and that goes from the janitors to the head of the hospital who was in the hospital with us,” she said.
Despite the chaos outside, morale did not waiver for either Dr. Kuy’s or Dr. Brandt’s crew.
“I remember walking throughout the hospital, doing my rounds, checking up on the units. I went to talk with some of the staff nurses, and what struck me was as I walk in I see these big smiles on their faces, I absolutely did not expect that,” Dr. Kuy said. “They had been in the hospital for 5 days, they were exhausted. It just makes me so proud to serve along these kinds of people.”
As travel became possible, Dr. Kuy and other area physicians – as well as volunteers from across the country – began to shift their focus to evacuation shelters, treating ambulatory patients there.
“The response has been phenomenal,” said Dr. Kuy. “I met an ER doctor from North Carolina who came to volunteer, we have FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] doctors from all across the state, and then of course, all the people from the different VA [hospitals].”
Pediatricians have sent their support as well, offering time and supplies to help take care of the patients at Texas Children’s Hospital, Dr. Brandt said.
At presstime, volunteers were still needed. The Texas Department of State Health Services opened a web portal for volunteer opportunities, and lifted restriction on out-of-state doctors from practicing medicine without state registration.
While there is still much that needs to be done to recover, those on the ground said that they feel an overwhelming feeling of community as people face what will inevitably be a tough road ahead.
“Houston has a reputation and a culture of helping neighbors and it has been astounding to watch what’s happening,” said Dr. Brandt. “No matter how tired people are or how stressful any cases are, everyone’s morale stays high.”
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
Trump administration ends DACA program, stranding medical students
President Trump has ended the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, a policy that protected immigrants who came to the United States as children from deportation and authorized them to work in the United States.
In a Sept. 5 press conference, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the DACA program an unconstitutional overreach of executive branch power by the former administration that deliberately sought to undermine the legislative branch. Rollback of the DACA program will begin immediately, Mr. Sessions said, with the program expiring completely on March 5, 2018.
“The effect of this unilateral executive amnesty, among other things, contributed to a surge of minors at the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences,” Mr. Sessions said during the press conference. “[DACA has] also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs. To have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit everyone. Therefore the nation must set and enforce a limit on how many immigrants we admit and that means all cannot be accepted.”
In a statement issued shortly after the press conference, President Trump said winding down the DACA program is in the nation’s best interest, and that there can be no principled immigration reform if the executive branch is able to “rewrite or nullify federal laws at will.
“As President, my highest duty is to defend the American people and the Constitution of the United States of America,” President Trump said in the statement. “At the same time, I do not favor punishing children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents. But we must also recognize that we are nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws.”
The DACA program was created by the Obama administration in 2012 as a way of protecting young, undocumented immigrants from deportation after Congress repeatedly blocked legislation that would develop such a safe haven. The policy allowed about 800,000 young adults brought to the United States illegally as children to work legally in the U.S. and remain in the country without the fear of deportation.
The program’s end will affect the growing number of medical students with DACA status and likely jeopardize the funding invested in their training. Sixty-two medical schools accept applications from DACA applicants, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). For the 2016 -2017 school year, 113 students with DACA status applied to US medical schools, and there were 65 medical students enrolled who had DACA status. AAMC does not collect data on medical students with DACA status; the National Resident Matching Program, likewise, does not collect data on residents with DACA status.
Loyola University in Chicago is one institute that could be significantly impacted by recension of DACA. The university has accepted more students with DACA status than any other U.S. medical school, and currently has 32 DACA students attending, said Mark Kuczewski, Ph.D., chair of medical education at Loyola University.
“It’s a tragic decision,” he said in an interview. “It once again puts a cloud over these young people who DACA has given the first real opportunity to come out of the shadows, be educated, and serve the community. Now they’re returned back to the situation of uncertainty.”
The decision to end DACA means that current DACA medical students may not be able to finish their training and that those close to completion may not be able to use their degrees in the workforce, Dr. Kuczewski said. Since they are not citizens, DACA students do not qualify for federal student loans, so medical schools must find ways to help DACA students finance their education. A major Catholic health system provides student loan packages for several DACA students at Loyola’s Stritch School of Medicine, Dr. Kuczewski said. However, such loan programs require DACA status. Without DACA or another path to citizenship, medical students in the middle of training will not be able to obtain financial aid to finish their training, he said. The work authorization that DACA provided will also be eliminated.
Dr. Kuczewski said his university plans to advocate strongly for Congress to pass legislation to protect DACA youth, such as the Dream Act of 2017.
“We are going to advocate strongly because we believe this is common sense,” he said. “You don’t just throw away the talents of these young people and the investments they’ve made in their education and the investments we’ve made in them. DACA has given many people the chance to see these young people as students, as employees, as colleagues, and we hope that helps people to mobilize.”
In a statement, Jack Ende, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said President Trump’s decision to end the DACA program threatens to deny the country the talents of more than half a million individuals making enormous contributions and will also undermine public health and medical education.
“Today’s executive order has the potential to gravely impact public health,” Dr. Ende said in the statement. “We know that noncitizens and undocumented immigrants are more likely to lack health insurance coverage. If the nearly 800,000 people who are currently benefiting from DACA have their protections removed, many will avoid seeking health care in order to reduce the risk of detection and deportation. … Those who seek to serve in the health care professions will be denied that opportunity.”
The Immigration Reform Law Institute praised President Trump’s decision to rescind the DACA program, calling the policy an affront to Congress and a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
“Contrary to former President Obama’s claims, not only is DACA not authorized by federal statute, but prior to the unlawful program, deferred action has only ever been applied to small numbers of illegal aliens on a case-by-case basis,” Dale Wilcox, executive director, said in a statement. “Applying it to approximately 15% of the illegal alien population was never a proper exercise of the president’s discretion under the Constitution and is inconsistent with the president’s duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. By rescinding DACA, President Trump has put an end to the previous administration’s flagrant violation of our immigration laws and its abuse of hard-working American taxpayers.”
In a memorandum issued Sept. 5, the Department of Homeland Security said it will begin winding down the DACA program, while providing a limited window in which it will adjudicate certain requests for DACA and associated applications. DHS will adjudicate, on an individual, case-by-case basis, properly filed pending DACA initial requests and associated applications for employment authorization documents that have been accepted by the department as of Sept.5, 2017, according to the memorandum. All DACA initial requests and associated applications filed after this date will be rejected.
[email protected]
On Twitter @legal_med
President Trump has ended the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, a policy that protected immigrants who came to the United States as children from deportation and authorized them to work in the United States.
In a Sept. 5 press conference, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the DACA program an unconstitutional overreach of executive branch power by the former administration that deliberately sought to undermine the legislative branch. Rollback of the DACA program will begin immediately, Mr. Sessions said, with the program expiring completely on March 5, 2018.
“The effect of this unilateral executive amnesty, among other things, contributed to a surge of minors at the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences,” Mr. Sessions said during the press conference. “[DACA has] also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs. To have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit everyone. Therefore the nation must set and enforce a limit on how many immigrants we admit and that means all cannot be accepted.”
In a statement issued shortly after the press conference, President Trump said winding down the DACA program is in the nation’s best interest, and that there can be no principled immigration reform if the executive branch is able to “rewrite or nullify federal laws at will.
“As President, my highest duty is to defend the American people and the Constitution of the United States of America,” President Trump said in the statement. “At the same time, I do not favor punishing children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents. But we must also recognize that we are nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws.”
The DACA program was created by the Obama administration in 2012 as a way of protecting young, undocumented immigrants from deportation after Congress repeatedly blocked legislation that would develop such a safe haven. The policy allowed about 800,000 young adults brought to the United States illegally as children to work legally in the U.S. and remain in the country without the fear of deportation.
The program’s end will affect the growing number of medical students with DACA status and likely jeopardize the funding invested in their training. Sixty-two medical schools accept applications from DACA applicants, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). For the 2016 -2017 school year, 113 students with DACA status applied to US medical schools, and there were 65 medical students enrolled who had DACA status. AAMC does not collect data on medical students with DACA status; the National Resident Matching Program, likewise, does not collect data on residents with DACA status.
Loyola University in Chicago is one institute that could be significantly impacted by recension of DACA. The university has accepted more students with DACA status than any other U.S. medical school, and currently has 32 DACA students attending, said Mark Kuczewski, Ph.D., chair of medical education at Loyola University.
“It’s a tragic decision,” he said in an interview. “It once again puts a cloud over these young people who DACA has given the first real opportunity to come out of the shadows, be educated, and serve the community. Now they’re returned back to the situation of uncertainty.”
The decision to end DACA means that current DACA medical students may not be able to finish their training and that those close to completion may not be able to use their degrees in the workforce, Dr. Kuczewski said. Since they are not citizens, DACA students do not qualify for federal student loans, so medical schools must find ways to help DACA students finance their education. A major Catholic health system provides student loan packages for several DACA students at Loyola’s Stritch School of Medicine, Dr. Kuczewski said. However, such loan programs require DACA status. Without DACA or another path to citizenship, medical students in the middle of training will not be able to obtain financial aid to finish their training, he said. The work authorization that DACA provided will also be eliminated.
Dr. Kuczewski said his university plans to advocate strongly for Congress to pass legislation to protect DACA youth, such as the Dream Act of 2017.
“We are going to advocate strongly because we believe this is common sense,” he said. “You don’t just throw away the talents of these young people and the investments they’ve made in their education and the investments we’ve made in them. DACA has given many people the chance to see these young people as students, as employees, as colleagues, and we hope that helps people to mobilize.”
In a statement, Jack Ende, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said President Trump’s decision to end the DACA program threatens to deny the country the talents of more than half a million individuals making enormous contributions and will also undermine public health and medical education.
“Today’s executive order has the potential to gravely impact public health,” Dr. Ende said in the statement. “We know that noncitizens and undocumented immigrants are more likely to lack health insurance coverage. If the nearly 800,000 people who are currently benefiting from DACA have their protections removed, many will avoid seeking health care in order to reduce the risk of detection and deportation. … Those who seek to serve in the health care professions will be denied that opportunity.”
The Immigration Reform Law Institute praised President Trump’s decision to rescind the DACA program, calling the policy an affront to Congress and a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
“Contrary to former President Obama’s claims, not only is DACA not authorized by federal statute, but prior to the unlawful program, deferred action has only ever been applied to small numbers of illegal aliens on a case-by-case basis,” Dale Wilcox, executive director, said in a statement. “Applying it to approximately 15% of the illegal alien population was never a proper exercise of the president’s discretion under the Constitution and is inconsistent with the president’s duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. By rescinding DACA, President Trump has put an end to the previous administration’s flagrant violation of our immigration laws and its abuse of hard-working American taxpayers.”
In a memorandum issued Sept. 5, the Department of Homeland Security said it will begin winding down the DACA program, while providing a limited window in which it will adjudicate certain requests for DACA and associated applications. DHS will adjudicate, on an individual, case-by-case basis, properly filed pending DACA initial requests and associated applications for employment authorization documents that have been accepted by the department as of Sept.5, 2017, according to the memorandum. All DACA initial requests and associated applications filed after this date will be rejected.
[email protected]
On Twitter @legal_med
President Trump has ended the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, a policy that protected immigrants who came to the United States as children from deportation and authorized them to work in the United States.
In a Sept. 5 press conference, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the DACA program an unconstitutional overreach of executive branch power by the former administration that deliberately sought to undermine the legislative branch. Rollback of the DACA program will begin immediately, Mr. Sessions said, with the program expiring completely on March 5, 2018.
“The effect of this unilateral executive amnesty, among other things, contributed to a surge of minors at the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences,” Mr. Sessions said during the press conference. “[DACA has] also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs. To have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit everyone. Therefore the nation must set and enforce a limit on how many immigrants we admit and that means all cannot be accepted.”
In a statement issued shortly after the press conference, President Trump said winding down the DACA program is in the nation’s best interest, and that there can be no principled immigration reform if the executive branch is able to “rewrite or nullify federal laws at will.
“As President, my highest duty is to defend the American people and the Constitution of the United States of America,” President Trump said in the statement. “At the same time, I do not favor punishing children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents. But we must also recognize that we are nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws.”
The DACA program was created by the Obama administration in 2012 as a way of protecting young, undocumented immigrants from deportation after Congress repeatedly blocked legislation that would develop such a safe haven. The policy allowed about 800,000 young adults brought to the United States illegally as children to work legally in the U.S. and remain in the country without the fear of deportation.
The program’s end will affect the growing number of medical students with DACA status and likely jeopardize the funding invested in their training. Sixty-two medical schools accept applications from DACA applicants, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). For the 2016 -2017 school year, 113 students with DACA status applied to US medical schools, and there were 65 medical students enrolled who had DACA status. AAMC does not collect data on medical students with DACA status; the National Resident Matching Program, likewise, does not collect data on residents with DACA status.
Loyola University in Chicago is one institute that could be significantly impacted by recension of DACA. The university has accepted more students with DACA status than any other U.S. medical school, and currently has 32 DACA students attending, said Mark Kuczewski, Ph.D., chair of medical education at Loyola University.
“It’s a tragic decision,” he said in an interview. “It once again puts a cloud over these young people who DACA has given the first real opportunity to come out of the shadows, be educated, and serve the community. Now they’re returned back to the situation of uncertainty.”
The decision to end DACA means that current DACA medical students may not be able to finish their training and that those close to completion may not be able to use their degrees in the workforce, Dr. Kuczewski said. Since they are not citizens, DACA students do not qualify for federal student loans, so medical schools must find ways to help DACA students finance their education. A major Catholic health system provides student loan packages for several DACA students at Loyola’s Stritch School of Medicine, Dr. Kuczewski said. However, such loan programs require DACA status. Without DACA or another path to citizenship, medical students in the middle of training will not be able to obtain financial aid to finish their training, he said. The work authorization that DACA provided will also be eliminated.
Dr. Kuczewski said his university plans to advocate strongly for Congress to pass legislation to protect DACA youth, such as the Dream Act of 2017.
“We are going to advocate strongly because we believe this is common sense,” he said. “You don’t just throw away the talents of these young people and the investments they’ve made in their education and the investments we’ve made in them. DACA has given many people the chance to see these young people as students, as employees, as colleagues, and we hope that helps people to mobilize.”
In a statement, Jack Ende, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said President Trump’s decision to end the DACA program threatens to deny the country the talents of more than half a million individuals making enormous contributions and will also undermine public health and medical education.
“Today’s executive order has the potential to gravely impact public health,” Dr. Ende said in the statement. “We know that noncitizens and undocumented immigrants are more likely to lack health insurance coverage. If the nearly 800,000 people who are currently benefiting from DACA have their protections removed, many will avoid seeking health care in order to reduce the risk of detection and deportation. … Those who seek to serve in the health care professions will be denied that opportunity.”
The Immigration Reform Law Institute praised President Trump’s decision to rescind the DACA program, calling the policy an affront to Congress and a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
“Contrary to former President Obama’s claims, not only is DACA not authorized by federal statute, but prior to the unlawful program, deferred action has only ever been applied to small numbers of illegal aliens on a case-by-case basis,” Dale Wilcox, executive director, said in a statement. “Applying it to approximately 15% of the illegal alien population was never a proper exercise of the president’s discretion under the Constitution and is inconsistent with the president’s duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. By rescinding DACA, President Trump has put an end to the previous administration’s flagrant violation of our immigration laws and its abuse of hard-working American taxpayers.”
In a memorandum issued Sept. 5, the Department of Homeland Security said it will begin winding down the DACA program, while providing a limited window in which it will adjudicate certain requests for DACA and associated applications. DHS will adjudicate, on an individual, case-by-case basis, properly filed pending DACA initial requests and associated applications for employment authorization documents that have been accepted by the department as of Sept.5, 2017, according to the memorandum. All DACA initial requests and associated applications filed after this date will be rejected.
[email protected]
On Twitter @legal_med
Medicare fee schedule: Proposed pay bump falls short of promise
Physicians will likely see a 0.31% uptick in their Medicare payments in 2018 and not the 0.5% promised in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.
Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were not able to find adequate funding in so-called misvalued codes to back the larger increase, as required by law, according to the proposed Medicare physician fee schedule for 2018.
Other provisions in the proposed Medicare physician fee schedule may be more palatable than the petite pay raise.
The proposal would roll back data reporting requirements of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), to better align them with the new Quality Payment Program (QPP), and will waive half of penalties assessed for not meeting PQRS requirements in 2016.
“We are proposing these changes based on stakeholder feedback and to better align with the MIPS [Merit-based Incentive Payment System track of the QPP] data submission requirements for the quality performance category,” according to a CMS fact sheet on the proposed fee schedule.
“This will allow some physicians who attempted to report for the 2016 performance period to avoid penalties and better align PQRS with MIPS as physicians transition to QPP,” officials from the American College of Physicians said in a statement.
Other physician organizations said they believed the proposal did not go far enough.
“While the reductions in penalties represent a move in the right direction, the [American College of Rheumatology] believes CMS should establish a value modifier adjustment of zero for 2018,” ACR officials said in a statement. “This would align with the agency’s policy to ‘zero out’ the impact of the resource use component of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System in 2019, the successor to the value modifier program. This provides additional time to continue refining the cost measures and gives physicians more time to understand the program.”
The proposed fee schedule also would delay implementation of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for imaging services, a program that would deny payments for imaging services unless the ordering physician consulted the appropriate use criteria.
The American Medical Association “appreciates CMS’ decision to postpone the implementation of this requirement until 2019 and to make the first year an opportunity for testing and education where consultation would not be required as a condition of payment for imaging services,” according to a statement.
“We also applaud the proposed delay in implementing AUC for diagnostic imaging studies,” ACR said in its statement. “We will be gauging the readiness of our members to use clinical support systems. ... We support simplifying and phasing-in the program requirements. The ACR also strongly supports larger exemptions to the program,” such as physicians in small groups and rural and underserved areas.
The proposed fee schedule also seeks feedback from physicians and organizations on how Medicare Part B pays for biosimilars. Under the 2016 fee schedule, the average sales prices (ASPs) for all biosimilar products assigned to the same reference product are included in the same CPT code, meaning the ASPs for all biosimilars of a common reference product are used to determine a single reimbursement rate.
That CMS is looking deeper at this is being seen as a plus.
Biosimilars “tied to the same reference product may not share all indications with one another or the reference product [and] a blended payment model may cause significant confusion in a multitiered biosimilars market that may include both interchangeable and noninterchangeable products,” the Biosimilars Forum said in a statement. The current situation “may lead to decreased physician confidence in how they are reimbursed and also dramatically reduce the investment in the development of biosimilars and thereby limit treatment options available to patients.”
Both the Biosimilars Forum and the ACR support unique codes for each biosimilar.
“Physicians can better track and monitor their effectiveness and ensure adequate pharmacovigilance in the area of biosimilars” by employing unique codes, according to ACR officials.
The fee schedule proposal also would expand the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), currently a demonstration project, taking it nationwide in 2018. The proposal outlines the payment structure and supplier enrollment requirements and compliance standards, as well as beneficiary engagement incentives.
Physicians would be paid based on performance goals being met by patients, including meeting certain numbers of service and maintenance sessions with the program as well as achieving specific weight loss goals. For beneficiaries who are able to lose at least 5% of body weight, physicians could receive up to $810. If that weight loss goal is not achieved, the most a physician could receive is $125, according to a CMS fact sheet. Currently, DPP can only be employed via office visit; however, the proposal would allow virtual make-up sessions.
“The new proposal provides more flexibility to DPP providers in supporting patient engagement and attendance and by making performance-based payments available if patients meet weight-loss targets over longer periods of time,” according to the AMA.
The fee schedule also proposes more telemedicine coverage, specifically for counseling to discuss the need for lung cancer screening, including eligibility determination and shared decision making, as well psychotherapy for crisis, with codes for the first 60 minutes of intervention and a separate code for each additional 30 minutes. Four add-on codes have been proposed to supplement existing codes that cover interactive complexity, chronic care management services, and health risk assessment.
For clinicians providing behavioral health services, CMS is proposing an increased payment for providing face-to-face office-based services that better reflects overhead expenses.
Comments on the fee schedule update are due Sept. 11 and can be made here. The final rule is expected in early November.
Physicians will likely see a 0.31% uptick in their Medicare payments in 2018 and not the 0.5% promised in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.
Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were not able to find adequate funding in so-called misvalued codes to back the larger increase, as required by law, according to the proposed Medicare physician fee schedule for 2018.
Other provisions in the proposed Medicare physician fee schedule may be more palatable than the petite pay raise.
The proposal would roll back data reporting requirements of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), to better align them with the new Quality Payment Program (QPP), and will waive half of penalties assessed for not meeting PQRS requirements in 2016.
“We are proposing these changes based on stakeholder feedback and to better align with the MIPS [Merit-based Incentive Payment System track of the QPP] data submission requirements for the quality performance category,” according to a CMS fact sheet on the proposed fee schedule.
“This will allow some physicians who attempted to report for the 2016 performance period to avoid penalties and better align PQRS with MIPS as physicians transition to QPP,” officials from the American College of Physicians said in a statement.
Other physician organizations said they believed the proposal did not go far enough.
“While the reductions in penalties represent a move in the right direction, the [American College of Rheumatology] believes CMS should establish a value modifier adjustment of zero for 2018,” ACR officials said in a statement. “This would align with the agency’s policy to ‘zero out’ the impact of the resource use component of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System in 2019, the successor to the value modifier program. This provides additional time to continue refining the cost measures and gives physicians more time to understand the program.”
The proposed fee schedule also would delay implementation of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for imaging services, a program that would deny payments for imaging services unless the ordering physician consulted the appropriate use criteria.
The American Medical Association “appreciates CMS’ decision to postpone the implementation of this requirement until 2019 and to make the first year an opportunity for testing and education where consultation would not be required as a condition of payment for imaging services,” according to a statement.
“We also applaud the proposed delay in implementing AUC for diagnostic imaging studies,” ACR said in its statement. “We will be gauging the readiness of our members to use clinical support systems. ... We support simplifying and phasing-in the program requirements. The ACR also strongly supports larger exemptions to the program,” such as physicians in small groups and rural and underserved areas.
The proposed fee schedule also seeks feedback from physicians and organizations on how Medicare Part B pays for biosimilars. Under the 2016 fee schedule, the average sales prices (ASPs) for all biosimilar products assigned to the same reference product are included in the same CPT code, meaning the ASPs for all biosimilars of a common reference product are used to determine a single reimbursement rate.
That CMS is looking deeper at this is being seen as a plus.
Biosimilars “tied to the same reference product may not share all indications with one another or the reference product [and] a blended payment model may cause significant confusion in a multitiered biosimilars market that may include both interchangeable and noninterchangeable products,” the Biosimilars Forum said in a statement. The current situation “may lead to decreased physician confidence in how they are reimbursed and also dramatically reduce the investment in the development of biosimilars and thereby limit treatment options available to patients.”
Both the Biosimilars Forum and the ACR support unique codes for each biosimilar.
“Physicians can better track and monitor their effectiveness and ensure adequate pharmacovigilance in the area of biosimilars” by employing unique codes, according to ACR officials.
The fee schedule proposal also would expand the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), currently a demonstration project, taking it nationwide in 2018. The proposal outlines the payment structure and supplier enrollment requirements and compliance standards, as well as beneficiary engagement incentives.
Physicians would be paid based on performance goals being met by patients, including meeting certain numbers of service and maintenance sessions with the program as well as achieving specific weight loss goals. For beneficiaries who are able to lose at least 5% of body weight, physicians could receive up to $810. If that weight loss goal is not achieved, the most a physician could receive is $125, according to a CMS fact sheet. Currently, DPP can only be employed via office visit; however, the proposal would allow virtual make-up sessions.
“The new proposal provides more flexibility to DPP providers in supporting patient engagement and attendance and by making performance-based payments available if patients meet weight-loss targets over longer periods of time,” according to the AMA.
The fee schedule also proposes more telemedicine coverage, specifically for counseling to discuss the need for lung cancer screening, including eligibility determination and shared decision making, as well psychotherapy for crisis, with codes for the first 60 minutes of intervention and a separate code for each additional 30 minutes. Four add-on codes have been proposed to supplement existing codes that cover interactive complexity, chronic care management services, and health risk assessment.
For clinicians providing behavioral health services, CMS is proposing an increased payment for providing face-to-face office-based services that better reflects overhead expenses.
Comments on the fee schedule update are due Sept. 11 and can be made here. The final rule is expected in early November.
Physicians will likely see a 0.31% uptick in their Medicare payments in 2018 and not the 0.5% promised in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.
Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were not able to find adequate funding in so-called misvalued codes to back the larger increase, as required by law, according to the proposed Medicare physician fee schedule for 2018.
Other provisions in the proposed Medicare physician fee schedule may be more palatable than the petite pay raise.
The proposal would roll back data reporting requirements of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), to better align them with the new Quality Payment Program (QPP), and will waive half of penalties assessed for not meeting PQRS requirements in 2016.
“We are proposing these changes based on stakeholder feedback and to better align with the MIPS [Merit-based Incentive Payment System track of the QPP] data submission requirements for the quality performance category,” according to a CMS fact sheet on the proposed fee schedule.
“This will allow some physicians who attempted to report for the 2016 performance period to avoid penalties and better align PQRS with MIPS as physicians transition to QPP,” officials from the American College of Physicians said in a statement.
Other physician organizations said they believed the proposal did not go far enough.
“While the reductions in penalties represent a move in the right direction, the [American College of Rheumatology] believes CMS should establish a value modifier adjustment of zero for 2018,” ACR officials said in a statement. “This would align with the agency’s policy to ‘zero out’ the impact of the resource use component of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System in 2019, the successor to the value modifier program. This provides additional time to continue refining the cost measures and gives physicians more time to understand the program.”
The proposed fee schedule also would delay implementation of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for imaging services, a program that would deny payments for imaging services unless the ordering physician consulted the appropriate use criteria.
The American Medical Association “appreciates CMS’ decision to postpone the implementation of this requirement until 2019 and to make the first year an opportunity for testing and education where consultation would not be required as a condition of payment for imaging services,” according to a statement.
“We also applaud the proposed delay in implementing AUC for diagnostic imaging studies,” ACR said in its statement. “We will be gauging the readiness of our members to use clinical support systems. ... We support simplifying and phasing-in the program requirements. The ACR also strongly supports larger exemptions to the program,” such as physicians in small groups and rural and underserved areas.
The proposed fee schedule also seeks feedback from physicians and organizations on how Medicare Part B pays for biosimilars. Under the 2016 fee schedule, the average sales prices (ASPs) for all biosimilar products assigned to the same reference product are included in the same CPT code, meaning the ASPs for all biosimilars of a common reference product are used to determine a single reimbursement rate.
That CMS is looking deeper at this is being seen as a plus.
Biosimilars “tied to the same reference product may not share all indications with one another or the reference product [and] a blended payment model may cause significant confusion in a multitiered biosimilars market that may include both interchangeable and noninterchangeable products,” the Biosimilars Forum said in a statement. The current situation “may lead to decreased physician confidence in how they are reimbursed and also dramatically reduce the investment in the development of biosimilars and thereby limit treatment options available to patients.”
Both the Biosimilars Forum and the ACR support unique codes for each biosimilar.
“Physicians can better track and monitor their effectiveness and ensure adequate pharmacovigilance in the area of biosimilars” by employing unique codes, according to ACR officials.
The fee schedule proposal also would expand the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), currently a demonstration project, taking it nationwide in 2018. The proposal outlines the payment structure and supplier enrollment requirements and compliance standards, as well as beneficiary engagement incentives.
Physicians would be paid based on performance goals being met by patients, including meeting certain numbers of service and maintenance sessions with the program as well as achieving specific weight loss goals. For beneficiaries who are able to lose at least 5% of body weight, physicians could receive up to $810. If that weight loss goal is not achieved, the most a physician could receive is $125, according to a CMS fact sheet. Currently, DPP can only be employed via office visit; however, the proposal would allow virtual make-up sessions.
“The new proposal provides more flexibility to DPP providers in supporting patient engagement and attendance and by making performance-based payments available if patients meet weight-loss targets over longer periods of time,” according to the AMA.
The fee schedule also proposes more telemedicine coverage, specifically for counseling to discuss the need for lung cancer screening, including eligibility determination and shared decision making, as well psychotherapy for crisis, with codes for the first 60 minutes of intervention and a separate code for each additional 30 minutes. Four add-on codes have been proposed to supplement existing codes that cover interactive complexity, chronic care management services, and health risk assessment.
For clinicians providing behavioral health services, CMS is proposing an increased payment for providing face-to-face office-based services that better reflects overhead expenses.
Comments on the fee schedule update are due Sept. 11 and can be made here. The final rule is expected in early November.
Call for Abstracts and Videos
You are invited to submit abstracts and videos for consideration at the AATS Week 2018 events:
AATS Aortic Symposium, April 26 - 27, 2018 in New York, NY
Submission Deadline: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
AATS 98th Annual Meeting, April 28 - May 1, 2018 in San Diego, CA
Submission Deadline: Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
For more information, visit: www.aats.org.
You are invited to submit abstracts and videos for consideration at the AATS Week 2018 events:
AATS Aortic Symposium, April 26 - 27, 2018 in New York, NY
Submission Deadline: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
AATS 98th Annual Meeting, April 28 - May 1, 2018 in San Diego, CA
Submission Deadline: Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
For more information, visit: www.aats.org.
You are invited to submit abstracts and videos for consideration at the AATS Week 2018 events:
AATS Aortic Symposium, April 26 - 27, 2018 in New York, NY
Submission Deadline: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
AATS 98th Annual Meeting, April 28 - May 1, 2018 in San Diego, CA
Submission Deadline: Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
For more information, visit: www.aats.org.
Take Part in the First-Ever AATS Surgical Treatment of Arrhythmias and Rhythm Disorders 2017
November 17-18, 2017
Nobu Eden Roc Hotel
Miami Beach, FL USA
Attendees of the newest AATS meeting will an interactive forum that supports the exchange of information between electrophysiologists and surgeons. The AATS Surgical Treatment of Arrhythmias and Rhythm Disorders provides a comprehensive, unbiased review of the surgical treatment of cardiac arrhythmias and rhythm disorders. The meeting will cover basic underlying mechanisms, cardiac recording and mapping techniques, clinical electrophysiology, operative techniques, cardiac monitoring and appropriate follow-up.
Sessions include:
• Concomitant Ablation – How I Do it and Why
• Hybrid Ablation and Other Alternative Approaches for Lone Atrial Fibrillation
• Lead Extraction: Modern Techniques in Management of Complications
• Management of the Left Atrial Appendage
• Mechanisms of Atrial Fibrillation
• Special Issues and Controversies in Surgical Ablation
• Surgical Ablation Guidelines
• Surgical Treatment of Arrhythmias: The Basics
• Surgical Treatment of Lone Atrial Fibrillation: How I Do It
• Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation
Program Directors
Ralph J. Damiano, Jr.
A. Marc Gillinov
Program Committee
Niv Ad
Vinay Badhwar
Manuel Castella
James L. Cox
Mark LaMeir
Patrick M. McCarthy
Takashi Nitta
Harold G. Roberts
Richard Schuessler
To view the preliminary program, go to: www.aats.org/stars
November 17-18, 2017
Nobu Eden Roc Hotel
Miami Beach, FL USA
Attendees of the newest AATS meeting will an interactive forum that supports the exchange of information between electrophysiologists and surgeons. The AATS Surgical Treatment of Arrhythmias and Rhythm Disorders provides a comprehensive, unbiased review of the surgical treatment of cardiac arrhythmias and rhythm disorders. The meeting will cover basic underlying mechanisms, cardiac recording and mapping techniques, clinical electrophysiology, operative techniques, cardiac monitoring and appropriate follow-up.
Sessions include:
• Concomitant Ablation – How I Do it and Why
• Hybrid Ablation and Other Alternative Approaches for Lone Atrial Fibrillation
• Lead Extraction: Modern Techniques in Management of Complications
• Management of the Left Atrial Appendage
• Mechanisms of Atrial Fibrillation
• Special Issues and Controversies in Surgical Ablation
• Surgical Ablation Guidelines
• Surgical Treatment of Arrhythmias: The Basics
• Surgical Treatment of Lone Atrial Fibrillation: How I Do It
• Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation
Program Directors
Ralph J. Damiano, Jr.
A. Marc Gillinov
Program Committee
Niv Ad
Vinay Badhwar
Manuel Castella
James L. Cox
Mark LaMeir
Patrick M. McCarthy
Takashi Nitta
Harold G. Roberts
Richard Schuessler
To view the preliminary program, go to: www.aats.org/stars
November 17-18, 2017
Nobu Eden Roc Hotel
Miami Beach, FL USA
Attendees of the newest AATS meeting will an interactive forum that supports the exchange of information between electrophysiologists and surgeons. The AATS Surgical Treatment of Arrhythmias and Rhythm Disorders provides a comprehensive, unbiased review of the surgical treatment of cardiac arrhythmias and rhythm disorders. The meeting will cover basic underlying mechanisms, cardiac recording and mapping techniques, clinical electrophysiology, operative techniques, cardiac monitoring and appropriate follow-up.
Sessions include:
• Concomitant Ablation – How I Do it and Why
• Hybrid Ablation and Other Alternative Approaches for Lone Atrial Fibrillation
• Lead Extraction: Modern Techniques in Management of Complications
• Management of the Left Atrial Appendage
• Mechanisms of Atrial Fibrillation
• Special Issues and Controversies in Surgical Ablation
• Surgical Ablation Guidelines
• Surgical Treatment of Arrhythmias: The Basics
• Surgical Treatment of Lone Atrial Fibrillation: How I Do It
• Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation
Program Directors
Ralph J. Damiano, Jr.
A. Marc Gillinov
Program Committee
Niv Ad
Vinay Badhwar
Manuel Castella
James L. Cox
Mark LaMeir
Patrick M. McCarthy
Takashi Nitta
Harold G. Roberts
Richard Schuessler
To view the preliminary program, go to: www.aats.org/stars
Travel to Las Vegas for Next Month’s AATS Focus on Thoracic Surgery: Mastering Surgical Innovation 2017
October 27-28, 2017
Encore at Wynn Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
The most elite experts in the field will be in Las Vega to present the latest information on new and emerging technologies for thoracic surgical diseases at the AATS Focus on Thoracic Surgery: Mastering Surgical Innovation 2017. The two-day meeting provides surgeons with an opportunity to learn the latest advances in diagnostic and therapeutic techniques, minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgeries.
Concentrating on two major areas that are undergoing dynamic changes due to technological advances – benign and malignant esophageal disease, and lung cancer and related diseases – the meeting features an interactive format that will enable attendees to incorporate technologies into their own practices, as well as information on how surgical innovation can impact patient outcomes and excellence in patient care.
Course Highlights Include:
• Pulmonary Nodule Localization- Best Methods
Jay M. Lee, University of California Los Angeles
• POEM for Motility Disorders and GIST Tumors
Steven R. DeMeester, The Oregon Clinic
• What is the Current Role of EBUS/EUS?
Bryan M. Burt, Baylor College of Medicine
Program Directors
G. Alexander Patterson
David S. Sugarbaker
Program Committee
Thomas A. D’Amico
Shaf Keshavjee
James D. Luketich
Bryan F. Meyers
Scott J. Swanson
Traves D. Crabtree
To register and reserve housing, go to: aats.org/focus
October 27-28, 2017
Encore at Wynn Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
The most elite experts in the field will be in Las Vega to present the latest information on new and emerging technologies for thoracic surgical diseases at the AATS Focus on Thoracic Surgery: Mastering Surgical Innovation 2017. The two-day meeting provides surgeons with an opportunity to learn the latest advances in diagnostic and therapeutic techniques, minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgeries.
Concentrating on two major areas that are undergoing dynamic changes due to technological advances – benign and malignant esophageal disease, and lung cancer and related diseases – the meeting features an interactive format that will enable attendees to incorporate technologies into their own practices, as well as information on how surgical innovation can impact patient outcomes and excellence in patient care.
Course Highlights Include:
• Pulmonary Nodule Localization- Best Methods
Jay M. Lee, University of California Los Angeles
• POEM for Motility Disorders and GIST Tumors
Steven R. DeMeester, The Oregon Clinic
• What is the Current Role of EBUS/EUS?
Bryan M. Burt, Baylor College of Medicine
Program Directors
G. Alexander Patterson
David S. Sugarbaker
Program Committee
Thomas A. D’Amico
Shaf Keshavjee
James D. Luketich
Bryan F. Meyers
Scott J. Swanson
Traves D. Crabtree
To register and reserve housing, go to: aats.org/focus
October 27-28, 2017
Encore at Wynn Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
The most elite experts in the field will be in Las Vega to present the latest information on new and emerging technologies for thoracic surgical diseases at the AATS Focus on Thoracic Surgery: Mastering Surgical Innovation 2017. The two-day meeting provides surgeons with an opportunity to learn the latest advances in diagnostic and therapeutic techniques, minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgeries.
Concentrating on two major areas that are undergoing dynamic changes due to technological advances – benign and malignant esophageal disease, and lung cancer and related diseases – the meeting features an interactive format that will enable attendees to incorporate technologies into their own practices, as well as information on how surgical innovation can impact patient outcomes and excellence in patient care.
Course Highlights Include:
• Pulmonary Nodule Localization- Best Methods
Jay M. Lee, University of California Los Angeles
• POEM for Motility Disorders and GIST Tumors
Steven R. DeMeester, The Oregon Clinic
• What is the Current Role of EBUS/EUS?
Bryan M. Burt, Baylor College of Medicine
Program Directors
G. Alexander Patterson
David S. Sugarbaker
Program Committee
Thomas A. D’Amico
Shaf Keshavjee
James D. Luketich
Bryan F. Meyers
Scott J. Swanson
Traves D. Crabtree
To register and reserve housing, go to: aats.org/focus