People who are not vaccinated against a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 present a disproportionate infectious risk to those who are vaccinated, according to a mathematical modeling study.

The study, which simulated patterns of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, showed that, as the populations mixed less, attack rates decreased among vaccinated people (from 15% to 10%) and increased among unvaccinated people (from 62% to 79%). The unvaccinated increasingly became the source of infection, however.

“When the vaccinated and unvaccinated mix, indirect protection is conferred upon the unvaccinated by the buffering effect of vaccinated individuals, and by contrast, risk in the vaccinated goes up,” lead author David Fisman, MD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

As the groups mix less and less, the size of the epidemic increases among the unvaccinated and decreases among the vaccinated. “But the impact of the unvaccinated on risk in the vaccinated is disproportionate to the numbers of contacts between the two groups,” said Dr. Fisman.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Relative contributions to risk

The researchers used a model of a respiratory viral disease “similar to SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta variant.” They included reproduction values to capture the dynamics of the Omicron variant, which was emerging at the time. In the study, vaccines ranged in effectiveness from 40% to 80%. The study incorporated various levels of mixing between a partially vaccinated and an unvaccinated population. The mixing ranged from random mixing to like-with-like mixing (“assortativity”). There were three possible “compartments” of people in the model: those considered susceptible to infection, those considered infected and infectious, and those considered immune because of recovery.

The model showed that, as mixing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated populations increased, case numbers rose, “with cases in the unvaccinated subpopulation accounting for a substantial proportion of infections.” However, as mixing between the populations decreased, the final attack rate decreased among vaccinated people, but the relative “contribution of risk to vaccinated people caused by infection acquired from contact with unvaccinated people ... increased.”

When the vaccination rate was increased in the model, case numbers among the vaccinated declined “as expected, owing to indirect protective effects,” the researchers noted. But this also “further increased the relative contribution to risk in vaccinated people by those who were unvaccinated.”
 

Self-regarding risk?

The findings show that “choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated,” the researchers wrote. “Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to those who are unvaccinated, the choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

The fact that like-with-like mixing cannot mitigate the risk to vaccinated people “undermines the assertion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual and supports strong public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people,” they wrote.
 

Mandates and passports

“Our model provides support for vaccine mandates and passports during epidemics, such that vaccination is required for people to take part in nonessential activities,” said Dr. Fisman. The choice to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 should not be considered “self-regarding,” he added. “Risk is self-regarding when it only impacts the person engaging in the activity. Something like smoking cigarettes (alone, without others around) creates a lot of risk over time, but if nobody is breathing your secondhand smoke, you’re only creating risk for yourself. By contrast, we regulate, in Ontario, your right to smoke in public indoor spaces such as restaurants, because once other people are around, the risk isn’t self-regarding anymore. You’re creating risk for others.”

The authors also noted that the risks created by the unvaccinated extend beyond those of infection by “creating a risk that those around them may not be able to obtain the care they need.” They recommended that considerations of equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be included in formulating vaccination policy.
 

Illuminating the discussion

Asked to comment on the study, Matthew Oughton, MD, assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said: “It is easy to dismiss a mathematical model as a series of assumptions that leads to an implausible conclusion. ... However, they can serve to illustrate and, to an extent, quantify the results of complex interactions, and this study does just that.” Dr. Oughton was not involved in the research.

During the past 2 years, the scientific press and the general press have often discussed the individual and collective effects of disease-prevention methods, including nonpharmaceutical interventions. “Models like this can help illuminate those discussions by highlighting important consequences of preventive measures,” said Dr. Oughton, who also works in the division of infectious diseases at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal.

It’s worth noting that the authors modeled vaccine effectiveness against all infection, “rather than the generally greater and more durable effects we have seen for vaccines in prevention of severe infection,” said Dr. Oughton. He added that the authors did not include the effect of vaccination in reducing forward transmission. “Inclusion of this effect would presumably have reduced overall infectious burden in mixed populations and increased the difference between groups at lower levels of mixing between populations.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Dr. Oughton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who are not vaccinated against a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 present a disproportionate infectious risk to those who are vaccinated, according to a mathematical modeling study.

The study, which simulated patterns of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, showed that, as the populations mixed less, attack rates decreased among vaccinated people (from 15% to 10%) and increased among unvaccinated people (from 62% to 79%). The unvaccinated increasingly became the source of infection, however.

“When the vaccinated and unvaccinated mix, indirect protection is conferred upon the unvaccinated by the buffering effect of vaccinated individuals, and by contrast, risk in the vaccinated goes up,” lead author David Fisman, MD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

As the groups mix less and less, the size of the epidemic increases among the unvaccinated and decreases among the vaccinated. “But the impact of the unvaccinated on risk in the vaccinated is disproportionate to the numbers of contacts between the two groups,” said Dr. Fisman.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Relative contributions to risk

The researchers used a model of a respiratory viral disease “similar to SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta variant.” They included reproduction values to capture the dynamics of the Omicron variant, which was emerging at the time. In the study, vaccines ranged in effectiveness from 40% to 80%. The study incorporated various levels of mixing between a partially vaccinated and an unvaccinated population. The mixing ranged from random mixing to like-with-like mixing (“assortativity”). There were three possible “compartments” of people in the model: those considered susceptible to infection, those considered infected and infectious, and those considered immune because of recovery.

The model showed that, as mixing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated populations increased, case numbers rose, “with cases in the unvaccinated subpopulation accounting for a substantial proportion of infections.” However, as mixing between the populations decreased, the final attack rate decreased among vaccinated people, but the relative “contribution of risk to vaccinated people caused by infection acquired from contact with unvaccinated people ... increased.”

When the vaccination rate was increased in the model, case numbers among the vaccinated declined “as expected, owing to indirect protective effects,” the researchers noted. But this also “further increased the relative contribution to risk in vaccinated people by those who were unvaccinated.”
 

Self-regarding risk?

The findings show that “choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated,” the researchers wrote. “Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to those who are unvaccinated, the choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

The fact that like-with-like mixing cannot mitigate the risk to vaccinated people “undermines the assertion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual and supports strong public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people,” they wrote.
 

Mandates and passports

“Our model provides support for vaccine mandates and passports during epidemics, such that vaccination is required for people to take part in nonessential activities,” said Dr. Fisman. The choice to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 should not be considered “self-regarding,” he added. “Risk is self-regarding when it only impacts the person engaging in the activity. Something like smoking cigarettes (alone, without others around) creates a lot of risk over time, but if nobody is breathing your secondhand smoke, you’re only creating risk for yourself. By contrast, we regulate, in Ontario, your right to smoke in public indoor spaces such as restaurants, because once other people are around, the risk isn’t self-regarding anymore. You’re creating risk for others.”

The authors also noted that the risks created by the unvaccinated extend beyond those of infection by “creating a risk that those around them may not be able to obtain the care they need.” They recommended that considerations of equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be included in formulating vaccination policy.
 

Illuminating the discussion

Asked to comment on the study, Matthew Oughton, MD, assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said: “It is easy to dismiss a mathematical model as a series of assumptions that leads to an implausible conclusion. ... However, they can serve to illustrate and, to an extent, quantify the results of complex interactions, and this study does just that.” Dr. Oughton was not involved in the research.

During the past 2 years, the scientific press and the general press have often discussed the individual and collective effects of disease-prevention methods, including nonpharmaceutical interventions. “Models like this can help illuminate those discussions by highlighting important consequences of preventive measures,” said Dr. Oughton, who also works in the division of infectious diseases at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal.

It’s worth noting that the authors modeled vaccine effectiveness against all infection, “rather than the generally greater and more durable effects we have seen for vaccines in prevention of severe infection,” said Dr. Oughton. He added that the authors did not include the effect of vaccination in reducing forward transmission. “Inclusion of this effect would presumably have reduced overall infectious burden in mixed populations and increased the difference between groups at lower levels of mixing between populations.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Dr. Oughton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who are not vaccinated against a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 present a disproportionate infectious risk to those who are vaccinated, according to a mathematical modeling study.

The study, which simulated patterns of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, showed that, as the populations mixed less, attack rates decreased among vaccinated people (from 15% to 10%) and increased among unvaccinated people (from 62% to 79%). The unvaccinated increasingly became the source of infection, however.

“When the vaccinated and unvaccinated mix, indirect protection is conferred upon the unvaccinated by the buffering effect of vaccinated individuals, and by contrast, risk in the vaccinated goes up,” lead author David Fisman, MD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

As the groups mix less and less, the size of the epidemic increases among the unvaccinated and decreases among the vaccinated. “But the impact of the unvaccinated on risk in the vaccinated is disproportionate to the numbers of contacts between the two groups,” said Dr. Fisman.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Relative contributions to risk

The researchers used a model of a respiratory viral disease “similar to SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta variant.” They included reproduction values to capture the dynamics of the Omicron variant, which was emerging at the time. In the study, vaccines ranged in effectiveness from 40% to 80%. The study incorporated various levels of mixing between a partially vaccinated and an unvaccinated population. The mixing ranged from random mixing to like-with-like mixing (“assortativity”). There were three possible “compartments” of people in the model: those considered susceptible to infection, those considered infected and infectious, and those considered immune because of recovery.

The model showed that, as mixing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated populations increased, case numbers rose, “with cases in the unvaccinated subpopulation accounting for a substantial proportion of infections.” However, as mixing between the populations decreased, the final attack rate decreased among vaccinated people, but the relative “contribution of risk to vaccinated people caused by infection acquired from contact with unvaccinated people ... increased.”

When the vaccination rate was increased in the model, case numbers among the vaccinated declined “as expected, owing to indirect protective effects,” the researchers noted. But this also “further increased the relative contribution to risk in vaccinated people by those who were unvaccinated.”
 

Self-regarding risk?

The findings show that “choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated,” the researchers wrote. “Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to those who are unvaccinated, the choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

The fact that like-with-like mixing cannot mitigate the risk to vaccinated people “undermines the assertion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual and supports strong public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people,” they wrote.
 

Mandates and passports

“Our model provides support for vaccine mandates and passports during epidemics, such that vaccination is required for people to take part in nonessential activities,” said Dr. Fisman. The choice to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 should not be considered “self-regarding,” he added. “Risk is self-regarding when it only impacts the person engaging in the activity. Something like smoking cigarettes (alone, without others around) creates a lot of risk over time, but if nobody is breathing your secondhand smoke, you’re only creating risk for yourself. By contrast, we regulate, in Ontario, your right to smoke in public indoor spaces such as restaurants, because once other people are around, the risk isn’t self-regarding anymore. You’re creating risk for others.”

The authors also noted that the risks created by the unvaccinated extend beyond those of infection by “creating a risk that those around them may not be able to obtain the care they need.” They recommended that considerations of equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be included in formulating vaccination policy.
 

Illuminating the discussion

Asked to comment on the study, Matthew Oughton, MD, assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said: “It is easy to dismiss a mathematical model as a series of assumptions that leads to an implausible conclusion. ... However, they can serve to illustrate and, to an extent, quantify the results of complex interactions, and this study does just that.” Dr. Oughton was not involved in the research.

During the past 2 years, the scientific press and the general press have often discussed the individual and collective effects of disease-prevention methods, including nonpharmaceutical interventions. “Models like this can help illuminate those discussions by highlighting important consequences of preventive measures,” said Dr. Oughton, who also works in the division of infectious diseases at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal.

It’s worth noting that the authors modeled vaccine effectiveness against all infection, “rather than the generally greater and more durable effects we have seen for vaccines in prevention of severe infection,” said Dr. Oughton. He added that the authors did not include the effect of vaccination in reducing forward transmission. “Inclusion of this effect would presumably have reduced overall infectious burden in mixed populations and increased the difference between groups at lower levels of mixing between populations.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Dr. Oughton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is on the rise among racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States, and social determinants of health (SDOH) contribute to disparities in IBD care and outcome, say the authors of a new paper on the topic. 

It’s an “overdue priority to acknowledge the weight and influence of the SDOH on health disparities in IBD care,” write Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and co-authors.

“Only after this acknowledgement can we begin to develop alternative systems that work to rectify the deleterious effects of our current policies in a more longitudinal and effective manner,” they say. 

Their paper was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Upstream factors propagate downstream outcomes

The authors found multiple examples in the literature of how upstream SDOH (for example, racism, poverty, neighborhood violence, and under-insurance) lead to midstream SDOH (for example, lack of social support, lack of access to specialized IBD care, poor housing conditions, and food insecurity) that result in poor downstream outcomes in IBD (for example, delayed diagnosis, increased disease activity, IBD flares, and suboptimal medical management). 

The IBD literature shows that Black/African American adults with IBD often have worse outcomes across the IBD care continuum than White peers, with higher hospitalization rates, longer stays, increased hospitalization costs, higher readmission rates, and more complications after IBD surgery.

Unequal access to specialized IBD care is a factor, with Black/African American patients less likely to undergo annual visits to a gastroenterologist or IBD specialist, twice as likely than White patients to visit the emergency department over a 12-month period, and less likely to receive treatment with infliximab.

As has been shown for other chronic digestive diseases and cancers, disparities in outcomes related to IBD exist across race, ethnicity, differential insurance status and coverage, and socioeconomic status, the authors note. 

Yet, they point out that, interestingly, a 2021 study of patients with Medicaid insurance from four states revealed no disparities in the use of IBD-specific medications between Black/African American and White patients, suggesting that when access to care is equal, disparities diminish.
 

Target multiple stakeholders to achieve IBD health equity 

Achieving health equity in IBD will require strategies targeting medical trainees, providers, practices, and health systems, as well as community and industry leaders and policymakers, Dr. Anyane-Yeboa and colleagues say. 

At the medical trainee level, racism and bias should be addressed early in medical student, resident, and fellow training and education. Curricula should move away from race-based training, where race is considered an independent risk factor for disease and often used to guide differential diagnoses and treatment, they suggest. 

At the provider level, they say self-reflection around one’s own beliefs, biases, perceptions, and interactions with diverse and vulnerable patient groups is “paramount.” Individual self-reflection should be coupled with mandatory and effective implicit bias and anti-racism training. 

At the practice or hospital system level, screening for SDOH at the point of care, addressing barriers to needed treatment, and connecting patients to appropriate resources are all important, they write. 

The researchers also call for policy-level changes to increase funding for health equity research, which is historically undervalued and underfunded.

“Focusing on SDOH as the root cause of health inequity in IBD is essential to improve outcomes for marginalized patients,” they write.

Given that research describing specific interventions to address SDOH in IBD is currently nonexistent, “our paper serves as a call to action for more work to be done in this area,” they say. 

“As medical providers and health care organizations, we all have a responsibility to address the SDOH when caring for our patients in order to provide each patient with IBD the opportunity to achieve the best health possible,” they conclude. 

This research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is on the rise among racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States, and social determinants of health (SDOH) contribute to disparities in IBD care and outcome, say the authors of a new paper on the topic. 

It’s an “overdue priority to acknowledge the weight and influence of the SDOH on health disparities in IBD care,” write Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and co-authors.

“Only after this acknowledgement can we begin to develop alternative systems that work to rectify the deleterious effects of our current policies in a more longitudinal and effective manner,” they say. 

Their paper was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Upstream factors propagate downstream outcomes

The authors found multiple examples in the literature of how upstream SDOH (for example, racism, poverty, neighborhood violence, and under-insurance) lead to midstream SDOH (for example, lack of social support, lack of access to specialized IBD care, poor housing conditions, and food insecurity) that result in poor downstream outcomes in IBD (for example, delayed diagnosis, increased disease activity, IBD flares, and suboptimal medical management). 

The IBD literature shows that Black/African American adults with IBD often have worse outcomes across the IBD care continuum than White peers, with higher hospitalization rates, longer stays, increased hospitalization costs, higher readmission rates, and more complications after IBD surgery.

Unequal access to specialized IBD care is a factor, with Black/African American patients less likely to undergo annual visits to a gastroenterologist or IBD specialist, twice as likely than White patients to visit the emergency department over a 12-month period, and less likely to receive treatment with infliximab.

As has been shown for other chronic digestive diseases and cancers, disparities in outcomes related to IBD exist across race, ethnicity, differential insurance status and coverage, and socioeconomic status, the authors note. 

Yet, they point out that, interestingly, a 2021 study of patients with Medicaid insurance from four states revealed no disparities in the use of IBD-specific medications between Black/African American and White patients, suggesting that when access to care is equal, disparities diminish.
 

Target multiple stakeholders to achieve IBD health equity 

Achieving health equity in IBD will require strategies targeting medical trainees, providers, practices, and health systems, as well as community and industry leaders and policymakers, Dr. Anyane-Yeboa and colleagues say. 

At the medical trainee level, racism and bias should be addressed early in medical student, resident, and fellow training and education. Curricula should move away from race-based training, where race is considered an independent risk factor for disease and often used to guide differential diagnoses and treatment, they suggest. 

At the provider level, they say self-reflection around one’s own beliefs, biases, perceptions, and interactions with diverse and vulnerable patient groups is “paramount.” Individual self-reflection should be coupled with mandatory and effective implicit bias and anti-racism training. 

At the practice or hospital system level, screening for SDOH at the point of care, addressing barriers to needed treatment, and connecting patients to appropriate resources are all important, they write. 

The researchers also call for policy-level changes to increase funding for health equity research, which is historically undervalued and underfunded.

“Focusing on SDOH as the root cause of health inequity in IBD is essential to improve outcomes for marginalized patients,” they write.

Given that research describing specific interventions to address SDOH in IBD is currently nonexistent, “our paper serves as a call to action for more work to be done in this area,” they say. 

“As medical providers and health care organizations, we all have a responsibility to address the SDOH when caring for our patients in order to provide each patient with IBD the opportunity to achieve the best health possible,” they conclude. 

This research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is on the rise among racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States, and social determinants of health (SDOH) contribute to disparities in IBD care and outcome, say the authors of a new paper on the topic. 

It’s an “overdue priority to acknowledge the weight and influence of the SDOH on health disparities in IBD care,” write Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and co-authors.

“Only after this acknowledgement can we begin to develop alternative systems that work to rectify the deleterious effects of our current policies in a more longitudinal and effective manner,” they say. 

Their paper was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Upstream factors propagate downstream outcomes

The authors found multiple examples in the literature of how upstream SDOH (for example, racism, poverty, neighborhood violence, and under-insurance) lead to midstream SDOH (for example, lack of social support, lack of access to specialized IBD care, poor housing conditions, and food insecurity) that result in poor downstream outcomes in IBD (for example, delayed diagnosis, increased disease activity, IBD flares, and suboptimal medical management). 

The IBD literature shows that Black/African American adults with IBD often have worse outcomes across the IBD care continuum than White peers, with higher hospitalization rates, longer stays, increased hospitalization costs, higher readmission rates, and more complications after IBD surgery.

Unequal access to specialized IBD care is a factor, with Black/African American patients less likely to undergo annual visits to a gastroenterologist or IBD specialist, twice as likely than White patients to visit the emergency department over a 12-month period, and less likely to receive treatment with infliximab.

As has been shown for other chronic digestive diseases and cancers, disparities in outcomes related to IBD exist across race, ethnicity, differential insurance status and coverage, and socioeconomic status, the authors note. 

Yet, they point out that, interestingly, a 2021 study of patients with Medicaid insurance from four states revealed no disparities in the use of IBD-specific medications between Black/African American and White patients, suggesting that when access to care is equal, disparities diminish.
 

Target multiple stakeholders to achieve IBD health equity 

Achieving health equity in IBD will require strategies targeting medical trainees, providers, practices, and health systems, as well as community and industry leaders and policymakers, Dr. Anyane-Yeboa and colleagues say. 

At the medical trainee level, racism and bias should be addressed early in medical student, resident, and fellow training and education. Curricula should move away from race-based training, where race is considered an independent risk factor for disease and often used to guide differential diagnoses and treatment, they suggest. 

At the provider level, they say self-reflection around one’s own beliefs, biases, perceptions, and interactions with diverse and vulnerable patient groups is “paramount.” Individual self-reflection should be coupled with mandatory and effective implicit bias and anti-racism training. 

At the practice or hospital system level, screening for SDOH at the point of care, addressing barriers to needed treatment, and connecting patients to appropriate resources are all important, they write. 

The researchers also call for policy-level changes to increase funding for health equity research, which is historically undervalued and underfunded.

“Focusing on SDOH as the root cause of health inequity in IBD is essential to improve outcomes for marginalized patients,” they write.

Given that research describing specific interventions to address SDOH in IBD is currently nonexistent, “our paper serves as a call to action for more work to be done in this area,” they say. 

“As medical providers and health care organizations, we all have a responsibility to address the SDOH when caring for our patients in order to provide each patient with IBD the opportunity to achieve the best health possible,” they conclude. 

This research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

You have an appointment with a 14-year-old youth you last saw for an annual camp physical. He had screened positive for depression, and you had referred him to a local therapist. He did not have an appointment until after camp, and you have only met a few times, but since you had spoken with him about his depression, he set up an appointment with you to ask about medications. When you meet him you ask about what he had been doing in therapy and he says, “I’m learning ‘coping skills,’ but they don’t work.”

From breathing exercises and sticker charts to mindfulness and grounding exercise, coping skills can be crucial for learning how to manage distress, regulate emotions, become more effective interpersonally, and function better. Similarly, parenting interventions, which change the way parents and youth interact, are a central family intervention for behavioral problems in youth.

It is very common, however, to hear that they “don’t work” or have a parent say, “We tried that, it doesn’t work.”

When kids and parents reject coping skills and behavioral interventions by saying they do not work, the consequences can be substantial. It can mean the rejection of coping skills and strategies that actually would have helped, given time and support; that kids and families bounce between services with increasing frustration; that they search for a magic bullet (which also won’t work); and, particularly concerning for physicians, a belief that the youth have not received the right medication, resulting in potentially unhelpful concoctions of medication.

One of the biggest challenges in helping youth and parents overcome their difficulties – whether these difficulties are depression and anxiety or being better parents to struggling kids – is helping them understand that despite the fact that coping skills and behavioral interventions do not seem to work, they work.

We just have to do a better job explaining what that “work” is.

There are five points you can make.

• First, the coping skill or behavioral intervention is not supposed to work if that means solving the underlying problem. Coping skills and behavioral interventions do not immediately cure anxiety, mend broken hearts, correct disruptive behaviors, disentangle power struggles, or alleviate depression. That is not what their job is. Coping skills and behavioral interventions are there to help us get better at handling complex situations and feelings. In particular, they are good at helping us manage our thoughts (“I can’t do it,” “He should behave better”) and our affect (anger, frustration, rage, anxiety, sadness), so that over time we get better at solving the problems, and break out of the patterns that perpetuate these problems.
• Second, kids and parents do not give skills credit for when they do work. That time you were spiraling out of control and told your mom you needed a break and watched some YouTube videos and then joined the family for dinner? Your coping skills worked, but nobody noticed because they worked. We need to help our young patients and families identify those times that coping skills and behavioral interventions worked.
• Third, let’s face it: Nothing works all the time. It is no wonder kids and families are disappointed by coping skills and behavioral interventions if they think they magically work once and forever. We need to manage expectations.
• Fourth, we know they are supposed to fail, and we should discuss this openly up front. This may sound surprising, but challenging behaviors often get worse when we begin to work on them. “Extinction bursts” is probably the easiest explanation, but for psychodynamically oriented youth and families we could talk about “resistance.” No matter what, things tend to get worse before they get better. We should let people know this ahead of time.
• Fifth, and this is the one that forces youth and parents to ask how hard they actually tried, these skills need to be practiced. You can’t be in the middle of a panic attack and for the first time start trying to pace your breathing with a technique a therapist told you about 3 weeks ago. This makes about as much sense as not training for a marathon. You need to practice and build up the skills, recognizing that as you become more familiar with them, they will help you manage during stressful situations. Every skill should be practiced, preferably several times or more in sessions, maybe every session, and definitely outside of sessions when not in distress.

We cannot blame children and parents for thinking that coping skills and behavioral interventions do not work. They are struggling, suffering, fighting, frightened, angry, anxious, frustrated, and often desperate for something to make everything better. Helping them recognize this desire for things to be better while managing expectations is an essential complement to supporting the use of coping skills and behavioral interventions, and a fairly easy conversation to have with youth.

So when you are talking about coping skills and parental behavioral interventions, it is important to be prepared for the “it didn’t work” conversation, and even to address these issues up front. After all, these strategies may not solve all the problems in the world, but can be lifelong ways of coping with life’s challenges.
 

Dr. Henderson is associate professor of clinical psychiatry at New York University and deputy director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital, New York.

You have an appointment with a 14-year-old youth you last saw for an annual camp physical. He had screened positive for depression, and you had referred him to a local therapist. He did not have an appointment until after camp, and you have only met a few times, but since you had spoken with him about his depression, he set up an appointment with you to ask about medications. When you meet him you ask about what he had been doing in therapy and he says, “I’m learning ‘coping skills,’ but they don’t work.”

From breathing exercises and sticker charts to mindfulness and grounding exercise, coping skills can be crucial for learning how to manage distress, regulate emotions, become more effective interpersonally, and function better. Similarly, parenting interventions, which change the way parents and youth interact, are a central family intervention for behavioral problems in youth.

It is very common, however, to hear that they “don’t work” or have a parent say, “We tried that, it doesn’t work.”

When kids and parents reject coping skills and behavioral interventions by saying they do not work, the consequences can be substantial. It can mean the rejection of coping skills and strategies that actually would have helped, given time and support; that kids and families bounce between services with increasing frustration; that they search for a magic bullet (which also won’t work); and, particularly concerning for physicians, a belief that the youth have not received the right medication, resulting in potentially unhelpful concoctions of medication.

One of the biggest challenges in helping youth and parents overcome their difficulties – whether these difficulties are depression and anxiety or being better parents to struggling kids – is helping them understand that despite the fact that coping skills and behavioral interventions do not seem to work, they work.

We just have to do a better job explaining what that “work” is.

There are five points you can make.

• First, the coping skill or behavioral intervention is not supposed to work if that means solving the underlying problem. Coping skills and behavioral interventions do not immediately cure anxiety, mend broken hearts, correct disruptive behaviors, disentangle power struggles, or alleviate depression. That is not what their job is. Coping skills and behavioral interventions are there to help us get better at handling complex situations and feelings. In particular, they are good at helping us manage our thoughts (“I can’t do it,” “He should behave better”) and our affect (anger, frustration, rage, anxiety, sadness), so that over time we get better at solving the problems, and break out of the patterns that perpetuate these problems.
• Second, kids and parents do not give skills credit for when they do work. That time you were spiraling out of control and told your mom you needed a break and watched some YouTube videos and then joined the family for dinner? Your coping skills worked, but nobody noticed because they worked. We need to help our young patients and families identify those times that coping skills and behavioral interventions worked.
• Third, let’s face it: Nothing works all the time. It is no wonder kids and families are disappointed by coping skills and behavioral interventions if they think they magically work once and forever. We need to manage expectations.
• Fourth, we know they are supposed to fail, and we should discuss this openly up front. This may sound surprising, but challenging behaviors often get worse when we begin to work on them. “Extinction bursts” is probably the easiest explanation, but for psychodynamically oriented youth and families we could talk about “resistance.” No matter what, things tend to get worse before they get better. We should let people know this ahead of time.
• Fifth, and this is the one that forces youth and parents to ask how hard they actually tried, these skills need to be practiced. You can’t be in the middle of a panic attack and for the first time start trying to pace your breathing with a technique a therapist told you about 3 weeks ago. This makes about as much sense as not training for a marathon. You need to practice and build up the skills, recognizing that as you become more familiar with them, they will help you manage during stressful situations. Every skill should be practiced, preferably several times or more in sessions, maybe every session, and definitely outside of sessions when not in distress.

We cannot blame children and parents for thinking that coping skills and behavioral interventions do not work. They are struggling, suffering, fighting, frightened, angry, anxious, frustrated, and often desperate for something to make everything better. Helping them recognize this desire for things to be better while managing expectations is an essential complement to supporting the use of coping skills and behavioral interventions, and a fairly easy conversation to have with youth.

So when you are talking about coping skills and parental behavioral interventions, it is important to be prepared for the “it didn’t work” conversation, and even to address these issues up front. After all, these strategies may not solve all the problems in the world, but can be lifelong ways of coping with life’s challenges.
 

Dr. Henderson is associate professor of clinical psychiatry at New York University and deputy director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital, New York.

You have an appointment with a 14-year-old youth you last saw for an annual camp physical. He had screened positive for depression, and you had referred him to a local therapist. He did not have an appointment until after camp, and you have only met a few times, but since you had spoken with him about his depression, he set up an appointment with you to ask about medications. When you meet him you ask about what he had been doing in therapy and he says, “I’m learning ‘coping skills,’ but they don’t work.”

From breathing exercises and sticker charts to mindfulness and grounding exercise, coping skills can be crucial for learning how to manage distress, regulate emotions, become more effective interpersonally, and function better. Similarly, parenting interventions, which change the way parents and youth interact, are a central family intervention for behavioral problems in youth.

It is very common, however, to hear that they “don’t work” or have a parent say, “We tried that, it doesn’t work.”

When kids and parents reject coping skills and behavioral interventions by saying they do not work, the consequences can be substantial. It can mean the rejection of coping skills and strategies that actually would have helped, given time and support; that kids and families bounce between services with increasing frustration; that they search for a magic bullet (which also won’t work); and, particularly concerning for physicians, a belief that the youth have not received the right medication, resulting in potentially unhelpful concoctions of medication.

One of the biggest challenges in helping youth and parents overcome their difficulties – whether these difficulties are depression and anxiety or being better parents to struggling kids – is helping them understand that despite the fact that coping skills and behavioral interventions do not seem to work, they work.

We just have to do a better job explaining what that “work” is.

There are five points you can make.

• First, the coping skill or behavioral intervention is not supposed to work if that means solving the underlying problem. Coping skills and behavioral interventions do not immediately cure anxiety, mend broken hearts, correct disruptive behaviors, disentangle power struggles, or alleviate depression. That is not what their job is. Coping skills and behavioral interventions are there to help us get better at handling complex situations and feelings. In particular, they are good at helping us manage our thoughts (“I can’t do it,” “He should behave better”) and our affect (anger, frustration, rage, anxiety, sadness), so that over time we get better at solving the problems, and break out of the patterns that perpetuate these problems.
• Second, kids and parents do not give skills credit for when they do work. That time you were spiraling out of control and told your mom you needed a break and watched some YouTube videos and then joined the family for dinner? Your coping skills worked, but nobody noticed because they worked. We need to help our young patients and families identify those times that coping skills and behavioral interventions worked.
• Third, let’s face it: Nothing works all the time. It is no wonder kids and families are disappointed by coping skills and behavioral interventions if they think they magically work once and forever. We need to manage expectations.
• Fourth, we know they are supposed to fail, and we should discuss this openly up front. This may sound surprising, but challenging behaviors often get worse when we begin to work on them. “Extinction bursts” is probably the easiest explanation, but for psychodynamically oriented youth and families we could talk about “resistance.” No matter what, things tend to get worse before they get better. We should let people know this ahead of time.
• Fifth, and this is the one that forces youth and parents to ask how hard they actually tried, these skills need to be practiced. You can’t be in the middle of a panic attack and for the first time start trying to pace your breathing with a technique a therapist told you about 3 weeks ago. This makes about as much sense as not training for a marathon. You need to practice and build up the skills, recognizing that as you become more familiar with them, they will help you manage during stressful situations. Every skill should be practiced, preferably several times or more in sessions, maybe every session, and definitely outside of sessions when not in distress.

We cannot blame children and parents for thinking that coping skills and behavioral interventions do not work. They are struggling, suffering, fighting, frightened, angry, anxious, frustrated, and often desperate for something to make everything better. Helping them recognize this desire for things to be better while managing expectations is an essential complement to supporting the use of coping skills and behavioral interventions, and a fairly easy conversation to have with youth.

So when you are talking about coping skills and parental behavioral interventions, it is important to be prepared for the “it didn’t work” conversation, and even to address these issues up front. After all, these strategies may not solve all the problems in the world, but can be lifelong ways of coping with life’s challenges.
 

Dr. Henderson is associate professor of clinical psychiatry at New York University and deputy director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital, New York.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

The percentage of low-income pregnant mothers who received influenza and Tdap vaccinations fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Black and Hispanic patients, a new study finds.

The percentage of patients who received the influenza vaccines at two Medicaid clinics in Houston dropped from 78% before the pandemic to 61% during it (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; P < .01), researchers reported at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The percentage receiving the Tdap vaccine dipped from 85% to 76% (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P < .01).

New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center pediatrician Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, who’s familiar with the study findings, called them “alarming” and said in an interview that they should be “a call to action for providers.”

“Continuing the status quo in our routine preventative health care and clinic operations means that we are losing ground in reduction and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

According to corresponding author Bani Ratan, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, there’s been little if any previous research into routine, non-COVID vaccination in pregnant women during the pandemic.

For the study, researchers retrospectively analyzed the records of 939 pregnant women who entered prenatal care before 20 weeks (462 from May–November 2019, and 477 from May–November 2020) and delivered at full term.

Among ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Blacks saw the largest decline in influenza vaccines. Among them, the percentage who got them fell from 64% (73/114) to 35% (35/101; aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.52; P < .01). Only Hispanics had a statistically significant decline in Tdap vaccination (OR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34-0.80; P < .01, percentages not provided).

Another study presented at ACOG examined vaccination rates during the pandemic and found that Tdap vaccination rates dipped among pregnant women in a Philadelphia-area health care system.

Possible causes for the decline in routine vaccination include hesitancy linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and fewer office visits because of telemedicine, said Dr. Batan in an interview.

Dr. Permar blamed the role of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and the mistrust caused by the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. She added that “challenges in health care staffing and issues of health care provider burnout that worsened during the pandemic likely contributed to a fraying of the focus on preventive health maintenance simply due to bandwidth of health professionals.”

In a separate study presented at ACOG, researchers at the State University of New York, Syracuse, reported on a survey of 157 pregnant women of whom just 38.2% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Among the unvaccinated, who were more likely to have less education, 66% reported that lack of data about vaccination was their primary concern.

No funding or disclosures are reported by study authors. Dr. Permar reported consulting for Merck, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Dynavax, and Hookipa on cytomegalovirus vaccine programs.

*This story was updated on 5/11/2022.

The percentage of low-income pregnant mothers who received influenza and Tdap vaccinations fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Black and Hispanic patients, a new study finds.

The percentage of patients who received the influenza vaccines at two Medicaid clinics in Houston dropped from 78% before the pandemic to 61% during it (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; P < .01), researchers reported at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The percentage receiving the Tdap vaccine dipped from 85% to 76% (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P < .01).

New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center pediatrician Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, who’s familiar with the study findings, called them “alarming” and said in an interview that they should be “a call to action for providers.”

“Continuing the status quo in our routine preventative health care and clinic operations means that we are losing ground in reduction and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

According to corresponding author Bani Ratan, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, there’s been little if any previous research into routine, non-COVID vaccination in pregnant women during the pandemic.

For the study, researchers retrospectively analyzed the records of 939 pregnant women who entered prenatal care before 20 weeks (462 from May–November 2019, and 477 from May–November 2020) and delivered at full term.

Among ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Blacks saw the largest decline in influenza vaccines. Among them, the percentage who got them fell from 64% (73/114) to 35% (35/101; aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.52; P < .01). Only Hispanics had a statistically significant decline in Tdap vaccination (OR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34-0.80; P < .01, percentages not provided).

Another study presented at ACOG examined vaccination rates during the pandemic and found that Tdap vaccination rates dipped among pregnant women in a Philadelphia-area health care system.

Possible causes for the decline in routine vaccination include hesitancy linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and fewer office visits because of telemedicine, said Dr. Batan in an interview.

Dr. Permar blamed the role of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and the mistrust caused by the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. She added that “challenges in health care staffing and issues of health care provider burnout that worsened during the pandemic likely contributed to a fraying of the focus on preventive health maintenance simply due to bandwidth of health professionals.”

In a separate study presented at ACOG, researchers at the State University of New York, Syracuse, reported on a survey of 157 pregnant women of whom just 38.2% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Among the unvaccinated, who were more likely to have less education, 66% reported that lack of data about vaccination was their primary concern.

No funding or disclosures are reported by study authors. Dr. Permar reported consulting for Merck, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Dynavax, and Hookipa on cytomegalovirus vaccine programs.

*This story was updated on 5/11/2022.

The percentage of low-income pregnant mothers who received influenza and Tdap vaccinations fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Black and Hispanic patients, a new study finds.

The percentage of patients who received the influenza vaccines at two Medicaid clinics in Houston dropped from 78% before the pandemic to 61% during it (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; P < .01), researchers reported at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The percentage receiving the Tdap vaccine dipped from 85% to 76% (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P < .01).

New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center pediatrician Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, who’s familiar with the study findings, called them “alarming” and said in an interview that they should be “a call to action for providers.”

“Continuing the status quo in our routine preventative health care and clinic operations means that we are losing ground in reduction and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

According to corresponding author Bani Ratan, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, there’s been little if any previous research into routine, non-COVID vaccination in pregnant women during the pandemic.

For the study, researchers retrospectively analyzed the records of 939 pregnant women who entered prenatal care before 20 weeks (462 from May–November 2019, and 477 from May–November 2020) and delivered at full term.

Among ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Blacks saw the largest decline in influenza vaccines. Among them, the percentage who got them fell from 64% (73/114) to 35% (35/101; aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.52; P < .01). Only Hispanics had a statistically significant decline in Tdap vaccination (OR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34-0.80; P < .01, percentages not provided).

Another study presented at ACOG examined vaccination rates during the pandemic and found that Tdap vaccination rates dipped among pregnant women in a Philadelphia-area health care system.

Possible causes for the decline in routine vaccination include hesitancy linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and fewer office visits because of telemedicine, said Dr. Batan in an interview.

Dr. Permar blamed the role of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and the mistrust caused by the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. She added that “challenges in health care staffing and issues of health care provider burnout that worsened during the pandemic likely contributed to a fraying of the focus on preventive health maintenance simply due to bandwidth of health professionals.”

In a separate study presented at ACOG, researchers at the State University of New York, Syracuse, reported on a survey of 157 pregnant women of whom just 38.2% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Among the unvaccinated, who were more likely to have less education, 66% reported that lack of data about vaccination was their primary concern.

No funding or disclosures are reported by study authors. Dr. Permar reported consulting for Merck, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Dynavax, and Hookipa on cytomegalovirus vaccine programs.

*This story was updated on 5/11/2022.

Coronavirus-related hospital admissions and deaths in the United States are projected to increase over the next four weeks, according to a national forecast used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The national model also predicts that about 5,000 deaths will occur over the next two weeks, with Ohio, New Jersey, and New York projected to see the largest totals of daily deaths in upcoming weeks.

The numbers follow several weeks of steady increases in infections across the country. More than 67,000 new cases are being reported daily, according to the data tracker from The New York Times, marking a 59% increase in the past two weeks.

In the Northeast, infection rates have risen by nearly 65%. In the New York and New Jersey region, infection rates are up about 55% in the past two weeks.

Hospitalizations have already begun to climb as well, with about 19,000 COVID-19 patients hospitalized nationwide and 1,725 in intensive care, according to the latest data from the Department of Health and Human Services. In the last week, hospital admissions have jumped by 20%, and emergency department visits are up by 18%.

The CDC forecast shows that 42 states and territories will see increases in hospital admissions during the next two weeks. Florida, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin will see some of the largest increases.

On average, more than 2,200 COVID-19 patients are entering the hospital each day, which has increased about 20% in the last week, according to ABC News. This also marks the highest number of COVID-19 patients needing hospital care since mid-March.

Public health officials have cited several factors for the increase in cases, such as states lifting mask mandates and other safety restrictions, ABC News reported. Highly contagious Omicron subvariants, such as BA.2 and BA.2.12.1, continue to spread in the United States and escape immunity from previous infections.

The BA.2 subvariant accounts for 62% of new national cases, according to the latest CDC data. The BA.2.12.1 subvariant makes up about 36% of new cases across the United States but 62% in the New York area.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Coronavirus-related hospital admissions and deaths in the United States are projected to increase over the next four weeks, according to a national forecast used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The national model also predicts that about 5,000 deaths will occur over the next two weeks, with Ohio, New Jersey, and New York projected to see the largest totals of daily deaths in upcoming weeks.

The numbers follow several weeks of steady increases in infections across the country. More than 67,000 new cases are being reported daily, according to the data tracker from The New York Times, marking a 59% increase in the past two weeks.

In the Northeast, infection rates have risen by nearly 65%. In the New York and New Jersey region, infection rates are up about 55% in the past two weeks.

Hospitalizations have already begun to climb as well, with about 19,000 COVID-19 patients hospitalized nationwide and 1,725 in intensive care, according to the latest data from the Department of Health and Human Services. In the last week, hospital admissions have jumped by 20%, and emergency department visits are up by 18%.

The CDC forecast shows that 42 states and territories will see increases in hospital admissions during the next two weeks. Florida, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin will see some of the largest increases.

On average, more than 2,200 COVID-19 patients are entering the hospital each day, which has increased about 20% in the last week, according to ABC News. This also marks the highest number of COVID-19 patients needing hospital care since mid-March.

Public health officials have cited several factors for the increase in cases, such as states lifting mask mandates and other safety restrictions, ABC News reported. Highly contagious Omicron subvariants, such as BA.2 and BA.2.12.1, continue to spread in the United States and escape immunity from previous infections.

The BA.2 subvariant accounts for 62% of new national cases, according to the latest CDC data. The BA.2.12.1 subvariant makes up about 36% of new cases across the United States but 62% in the New York area.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Coronavirus-related hospital admissions and deaths in the United States are projected to increase over the next four weeks, according to a national forecast used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The national model also predicts that about 5,000 deaths will occur over the next two weeks, with Ohio, New Jersey, and New York projected to see the largest totals of daily deaths in upcoming weeks.

The numbers follow several weeks of steady increases in infections across the country. More than 67,000 new cases are being reported daily, according to the data tracker from The New York Times, marking a 59% increase in the past two weeks.

In the Northeast, infection rates have risen by nearly 65%. In the New York and New Jersey region, infection rates are up about 55% in the past two weeks.

Hospitalizations have already begun to climb as well, with about 19,000 COVID-19 patients hospitalized nationwide and 1,725 in intensive care, according to the latest data from the Department of Health and Human Services. In the last week, hospital admissions have jumped by 20%, and emergency department visits are up by 18%.

The CDC forecast shows that 42 states and territories will see increases in hospital admissions during the next two weeks. Florida, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin will see some of the largest increases.

On average, more than 2,200 COVID-19 patients are entering the hospital each day, which has increased about 20% in the last week, according to ABC News. This also marks the highest number of COVID-19 patients needing hospital care since mid-March.

Public health officials have cited several factors for the increase in cases, such as states lifting mask mandates and other safety restrictions, ABC News reported. Highly contagious Omicron subvariants, such as BA.2 and BA.2.12.1, continue to spread in the United States and escape immunity from previous infections.

The BA.2 subvariant accounts for 62% of new national cases, according to the latest CDC data. The BA.2.12.1 subvariant makes up about 36% of new cases across the United States but 62% in the New York area.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Patients with cancer enrolled in Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) may be denied needed care, leading to delays in treatment and administrative headaches for oncology practices, a recent analysis suggests.

The report from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services found that 13% of prior authorization denials were for service requests, which included cancer care, that met Medicare coverage rules and 18% of payment denials were for claims that met Medicare coverage and MAO billing rules, delaying or halting payments for services that clinicians had provided.

MAO denials are the “bane of my existence,” said Michael Buckstein, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.

“Working at a large hospital in a metropolitan city, we spend enormous and increasing amounts of time on prior approvals and we get denials quite frequently, which certainly can lead to delays in treatment,” said Dr. Buckstein, who reviewed the OIG report for this news organization.

According to Dr. Buckstein, once a claim is denied, staff must spend time filing and scheduling an appeal, and if the appeal is denied in a physician peer-to-peer review, staff could face secondary and tertiary appeals. “We have been living with this frustration for a long time,” Dr. Buckstein said.
 

Widespread and persistent problems

Medicare Advantage plans, which are approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services but run by private companies, continue to grow in popularity.

In 2021, 26.4 million Medicare beneficiaries (42%) were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, and by 2030, about 51% of all Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled, according to estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“Although MAOs approve the vast majority of prior authorization requests and provider payment requests, MAOs also deny millions of requests each year,” the OIG wrote. “CMS’s annual audits of MAOs have highlighted widespread and persistent problems related to inappropriate denials of services and payment.”

In the current report, the OIG reviewed case files for 247 denials of prior authorization requests and 183 payment denials issued by 15 of the largest MAOs during 1 week in June of 2019. 

The authors found that 13% of prior authorization denials occurred for service requests that met Medicare coverage rules, meaning these services would likely have been approved had the patient been enrolled in traditional Medicare.

The most prominent service types among these denials included imaging services, stays in postacute facilities, and injections.

In one case, for example, the MAO stated that a beneficiary would need to wait at least 1 year for a follow-up MRI because the size of the patient’s adrenal lesion (< 2 cm) was too small to warrant follow-up before 1 year. However, this restriction is not included in Medicare coverage rules. And an OIG physician panel found that the documentation in the original request demonstrated that the MRI was medically necessary to determine whether the lesion seen on an earlier CT scan was malignant.

Upon appeal, the MAO reversed its original denial.

Among the payment requests that MAOs denied, almost one in five were for claims that met Medicare coverage and billing rules, which delayed or prevented payments for services already delivered. Most payment denials were caused by human error during manual claims-processing reviews and system processing errors, the OIG report found.

In one case, for example, a MAO denied payment for radiation treatment for a patient with a tumor on the pancreas, incorrectly claiming that no prior authorization had been submitted for the service. However, the physician subsequently provided a screenshot demonstrating that the MAO had granted prior authorization for the billed claim, and the MAO reversed the denial.

Most of these prior authorization denial reversals occurred because of an appeal filed by the beneficiary or the provider, which can take weeks.

In one case, an MAO denied a request for a CT scan of the chest and pelvis for a beneficiary with endometrial cancer. It took 5 weeks for the provider to get the denial reversed. The OIG panel determined that the original request included sufficient documentation to demonstrate the CT was needed to assess the stage of the cancer and determine the appropriate course of treatment.

These denials and reversals not only waste time but may also cause harm. In a 2021 American Medical Association survey, 34% of physicians reported that prior authorization led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care, including hospitalization, medical intervention to prevent permanent impairment, and even disability or death.

Almost 90% of the physicians surveyed described the burden associated with prior authorizations as ‘high’ or ‘extremely high.’ More specifically, physicians and their staff spend nearly 2 days a week on prior authorizations and 40% of physicians have staff who work exclusively on prior authorizations.

“It’s just not the way medicine should be practiced, especially for cancer patients who are very vulnerable and want rapid care,” Dr. Buckstein said.
 

Time for action

Weighing in on the OIG report, Robert E. Wailes, MD, president of the California Medical Association, noted that “it has become common practice for health insurance companies to create obstacles for patients in hopes of not having to pay for essential healthcare.”

The reason for these obstacles is simple, he said: “Fewer procedures performed translates to larger insurance company profits.”

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) defended prior authorization, saying it is “an important patient safety, cost-saving, and waste-prevention tool.”

The group also called out the OIG review for its “extraordinarily small” sample of 247 prior authorization requests over 1 week. 

“Drawing far-reaching conclusions based on a very small sample of data and misleading headlines is not a productive way to improve our healthcare system for patients,” the AHIP statement reads.

But, according to Anna Schwamlein Howard, who works on policy development at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the recent OIG report is in line with previous OIG reports.

And, Ms. Howard emphasized, the current report and others like it “highlight the need for CMS to utilize its audit authority and ensure that beneficiaries have access to medically necessary treatments, particularly cancer treatments.”

Along those lines, the OIG report recommends that the CMS should issue new guidance on the appropriate use of MAO clinical criteria in medical necessity reviews, update its audit protocols to address issues identified in the report, and direct MAOs to take additional steps to identify and address vulnerabilities that can lead to manual review and system errors.

In a statement, the CMS said it is committed to oversight and enforcement of the requirements of the Medicare Advantage program and agreed with the OIG recommendations.

“Lawmakers must act now to place patient needs before corporate profits and simplify by streamlining prior authorization processes,” Dr. Wailes said.

The ACS recently released a paper on this topic entitled, “The Medicare Appeals Process: Reforms Needed to Ensure Beneficiary Access.” 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with cancer enrolled in Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) may be denied needed care, leading to delays in treatment and administrative headaches for oncology practices, a recent analysis suggests.

The report from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services found that 13% of prior authorization denials were for service requests, which included cancer care, that met Medicare coverage rules and 18% of payment denials were for claims that met Medicare coverage and MAO billing rules, delaying or halting payments for services that clinicians had provided.

MAO denials are the “bane of my existence,” said Michael Buckstein, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.

“Working at a large hospital in a metropolitan city, we spend enormous and increasing amounts of time on prior approvals and we get denials quite frequently, which certainly can lead to delays in treatment,” said Dr. Buckstein, who reviewed the OIG report for this news organization.

According to Dr. Buckstein, once a claim is denied, staff must spend time filing and scheduling an appeal, and if the appeal is denied in a physician peer-to-peer review, staff could face secondary and tertiary appeals. “We have been living with this frustration for a long time,” Dr. Buckstein said.
 

Widespread and persistent problems

Medicare Advantage plans, which are approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services but run by private companies, continue to grow in popularity.

In 2021, 26.4 million Medicare beneficiaries (42%) were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, and by 2030, about 51% of all Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled, according to estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“Although MAOs approve the vast majority of prior authorization requests and provider payment requests, MAOs also deny millions of requests each year,” the OIG wrote. “CMS’s annual audits of MAOs have highlighted widespread and persistent problems related to inappropriate denials of services and payment.”

In the current report, the OIG reviewed case files for 247 denials of prior authorization requests and 183 payment denials issued by 15 of the largest MAOs during 1 week in June of 2019. 

The authors found that 13% of prior authorization denials occurred for service requests that met Medicare coverage rules, meaning these services would likely have been approved had the patient been enrolled in traditional Medicare.

The most prominent service types among these denials included imaging services, stays in postacute facilities, and injections.

In one case, for example, the MAO stated that a beneficiary would need to wait at least 1 year for a follow-up MRI because the size of the patient’s adrenal lesion (< 2 cm) was too small to warrant follow-up before 1 year. However, this restriction is not included in Medicare coverage rules. And an OIG physician panel found that the documentation in the original request demonstrated that the MRI was medically necessary to determine whether the lesion seen on an earlier CT scan was malignant.

Upon appeal, the MAO reversed its original denial.

Among the payment requests that MAOs denied, almost one in five were for claims that met Medicare coverage and billing rules, which delayed or prevented payments for services already delivered. Most payment denials were caused by human error during manual claims-processing reviews and system processing errors, the OIG report found.

In one case, for example, a MAO denied payment for radiation treatment for a patient with a tumor on the pancreas, incorrectly claiming that no prior authorization had been submitted for the service. However, the physician subsequently provided a screenshot demonstrating that the MAO had granted prior authorization for the billed claim, and the MAO reversed the denial.

Most of these prior authorization denial reversals occurred because of an appeal filed by the beneficiary or the provider, which can take weeks.

In one case, an MAO denied a request for a CT scan of the chest and pelvis for a beneficiary with endometrial cancer. It took 5 weeks for the provider to get the denial reversed. The OIG panel determined that the original request included sufficient documentation to demonstrate the CT was needed to assess the stage of the cancer and determine the appropriate course of treatment.

These denials and reversals not only waste time but may also cause harm. In a 2021 American Medical Association survey, 34% of physicians reported that prior authorization led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care, including hospitalization, medical intervention to prevent permanent impairment, and even disability or death.

Almost 90% of the physicians surveyed described the burden associated with prior authorizations as ‘high’ or ‘extremely high.’ More specifically, physicians and their staff spend nearly 2 days a week on prior authorizations and 40% of physicians have staff who work exclusively on prior authorizations.

“It’s just not the way medicine should be practiced, especially for cancer patients who are very vulnerable and want rapid care,” Dr. Buckstein said.
 

Time for action

Weighing in on the OIG report, Robert E. Wailes, MD, president of the California Medical Association, noted that “it has become common practice for health insurance companies to create obstacles for patients in hopes of not having to pay for essential healthcare.”

The reason for these obstacles is simple, he said: “Fewer procedures performed translates to larger insurance company profits.”

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) defended prior authorization, saying it is “an important patient safety, cost-saving, and waste-prevention tool.”

The group also called out the OIG review for its “extraordinarily small” sample of 247 prior authorization requests over 1 week. 

“Drawing far-reaching conclusions based on a very small sample of data and misleading headlines is not a productive way to improve our healthcare system for patients,” the AHIP statement reads.

But, according to Anna Schwamlein Howard, who works on policy development at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the recent OIG report is in line with previous OIG reports.

And, Ms. Howard emphasized, the current report and others like it “highlight the need for CMS to utilize its audit authority and ensure that beneficiaries have access to medically necessary treatments, particularly cancer treatments.”

Along those lines, the OIG report recommends that the CMS should issue new guidance on the appropriate use of MAO clinical criteria in medical necessity reviews, update its audit protocols to address issues identified in the report, and direct MAOs to take additional steps to identify and address vulnerabilities that can lead to manual review and system errors.

In a statement, the CMS said it is committed to oversight and enforcement of the requirements of the Medicare Advantage program and agreed with the OIG recommendations.

“Lawmakers must act now to place patient needs before corporate profits and simplify by streamlining prior authorization processes,” Dr. Wailes said.

The ACS recently released a paper on this topic entitled, “The Medicare Appeals Process: Reforms Needed to Ensure Beneficiary Access.” 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with cancer enrolled in Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) may be denied needed care, leading to delays in treatment and administrative headaches for oncology practices, a recent analysis suggests.

The report from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services found that 13% of prior authorization denials were for service requests, which included cancer care, that met Medicare coverage rules and 18% of payment denials were for claims that met Medicare coverage and MAO billing rules, delaying or halting payments for services that clinicians had provided.

MAO denials are the “bane of my existence,” said Michael Buckstein, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.

“Working at a large hospital in a metropolitan city, we spend enormous and increasing amounts of time on prior approvals and we get denials quite frequently, which certainly can lead to delays in treatment,” said Dr. Buckstein, who reviewed the OIG report for this news organization.

According to Dr. Buckstein, once a claim is denied, staff must spend time filing and scheduling an appeal, and if the appeal is denied in a physician peer-to-peer review, staff could face secondary and tertiary appeals. “We have been living with this frustration for a long time,” Dr. Buckstein said.
 

Widespread and persistent problems

Medicare Advantage plans, which are approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services but run by private companies, continue to grow in popularity.

In 2021, 26.4 million Medicare beneficiaries (42%) were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, and by 2030, about 51% of all Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled, according to estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“Although MAOs approve the vast majority of prior authorization requests and provider payment requests, MAOs also deny millions of requests each year,” the OIG wrote. “CMS’s annual audits of MAOs have highlighted widespread and persistent problems related to inappropriate denials of services and payment.”

In the current report, the OIG reviewed case files for 247 denials of prior authorization requests and 183 payment denials issued by 15 of the largest MAOs during 1 week in June of 2019. 

The authors found that 13% of prior authorization denials occurred for service requests that met Medicare coverage rules, meaning these services would likely have been approved had the patient been enrolled in traditional Medicare.

The most prominent service types among these denials included imaging services, stays in postacute facilities, and injections.

In one case, for example, the MAO stated that a beneficiary would need to wait at least 1 year for a follow-up MRI because the size of the patient’s adrenal lesion (< 2 cm) was too small to warrant follow-up before 1 year. However, this restriction is not included in Medicare coverage rules. And an OIG physician panel found that the documentation in the original request demonstrated that the MRI was medically necessary to determine whether the lesion seen on an earlier CT scan was malignant.

Upon appeal, the MAO reversed its original denial.

Among the payment requests that MAOs denied, almost one in five were for claims that met Medicare coverage and billing rules, which delayed or prevented payments for services already delivered. Most payment denials were caused by human error during manual claims-processing reviews and system processing errors, the OIG report found.

In one case, for example, a MAO denied payment for radiation treatment for a patient with a tumor on the pancreas, incorrectly claiming that no prior authorization had been submitted for the service. However, the physician subsequently provided a screenshot demonstrating that the MAO had granted prior authorization for the billed claim, and the MAO reversed the denial.

Most of these prior authorization denial reversals occurred because of an appeal filed by the beneficiary or the provider, which can take weeks.

In one case, an MAO denied a request for a CT scan of the chest and pelvis for a beneficiary with endometrial cancer. It took 5 weeks for the provider to get the denial reversed. The OIG panel determined that the original request included sufficient documentation to demonstrate the CT was needed to assess the stage of the cancer and determine the appropriate course of treatment.

These denials and reversals not only waste time but may also cause harm. In a 2021 American Medical Association survey, 34% of physicians reported that prior authorization led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care, including hospitalization, medical intervention to prevent permanent impairment, and even disability or death.

Almost 90% of the physicians surveyed described the burden associated with prior authorizations as ‘high’ or ‘extremely high.’ More specifically, physicians and their staff spend nearly 2 days a week on prior authorizations and 40% of physicians have staff who work exclusively on prior authorizations.

“It’s just not the way medicine should be practiced, especially for cancer patients who are very vulnerable and want rapid care,” Dr. Buckstein said.
 

Time for action

Weighing in on the OIG report, Robert E. Wailes, MD, president of the California Medical Association, noted that “it has become common practice for health insurance companies to create obstacles for patients in hopes of not having to pay for essential healthcare.”

The reason for these obstacles is simple, he said: “Fewer procedures performed translates to larger insurance company profits.”

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) defended prior authorization, saying it is “an important patient safety, cost-saving, and waste-prevention tool.”

The group also called out the OIG review for its “extraordinarily small” sample of 247 prior authorization requests over 1 week. 

“Drawing far-reaching conclusions based on a very small sample of data and misleading headlines is not a productive way to improve our healthcare system for patients,” the AHIP statement reads.

But, according to Anna Schwamlein Howard, who works on policy development at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the recent OIG report is in line with previous OIG reports.

And, Ms. Howard emphasized, the current report and others like it “highlight the need for CMS to utilize its audit authority and ensure that beneficiaries have access to medically necessary treatments, particularly cancer treatments.”

Along those lines, the OIG report recommends that the CMS should issue new guidance on the appropriate use of MAO clinical criteria in medical necessity reviews, update its audit protocols to address issues identified in the report, and direct MAOs to take additional steps to identify and address vulnerabilities that can lead to manual review and system errors.

In a statement, the CMS said it is committed to oversight and enforcement of the requirements of the Medicare Advantage program and agreed with the OIG recommendations.

“Lawmakers must act now to place patient needs before corporate profits and simplify by streamlining prior authorization processes,” Dr. Wailes said.

The ACS recently released a paper on this topic entitled, “The Medicare Appeals Process: Reforms Needed to Ensure Beneficiary Access.” 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently, I encountered a study in Pediatrics that hoped to answer the question of whether there was any benefit to tactile stimulation in those nerve-rattling moments when a newborn didn’t seem to take much interest in breathing: “Tactile stimulation in newborn infants with inadequate respiration at birth: A systematic review.” Now there is a title that grabs the attention of every frontline pediatrician who has sweated through those minutes that seemed like hours in the delivery room when some little rascal has decided that breathing isn’t a priority.

Of course, your great grandmother and everyone else knew what needed to be done – the obstetrician hung the baby by his or her ankles and slapped it on the bottom a couple of times. But you went to medical school and learned that was barbaric. Instead, you modeled the behavior of the residents and delivery room nurses who had more refined techniques such as heel flicking and vigorous spine rubbing. You never thought to ask if there was any science behind those activities because everyone did them.

Well, the authors of the article in Pediatrics, writing on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and Neonatal Life Support Task Force, thought the time had come to turn over a few stones and see if tactile stimulation was a benefit in resuscitation. Beginning with 2,455 possibly relevant articles, they quickly (I suspect they would quibble with the “quickly” part) winnowed these down to two observational studies, one of which was rejected because of “critical risk of bias.” The surviving study showed a reduction in tracheal intubation in infants who had received tactile stimulation. However, the authors felt that the “certainty of evidence was very low.”

So, there you have it. Aren’t you glad you didn’t invest 15 or 20 minutes discovering what you probably had guessed already? You can thank me later.

You already suspected that it may not help. However, like any good physician, what you really wanted to know is whether were you doing any harm by heel flicking and spine rubbing. And I bet you already had an opinion about the answer to that question. During your training, you may have seen delivery room personnel who were clearly too vigorous in their tactile stimulation and/or too persistent in their heel flicking and spine rubbing when the next steps in resuscitation needed to be taken. That’s the next study that needs to be done. I hope that study finds that tactile stimulation may not help but as long as it is done using specific techniques and within certain temporal parameters it does no harm.

I was never much for heel flicking. My favorite tactile stimulation was encircling the pokey infant’s chest in my hand, gently compressing and then quickly releasing a couple of times. My hope was that by mimicking the birth process the sensors in the infant’s chest wall would remind him it was time to breathe. That, and a silent plea to Mother Nature, worked most of the time.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Recently, I encountered a study in Pediatrics that hoped to answer the question of whether there was any benefit to tactile stimulation in those nerve-rattling moments when a newborn didn’t seem to take much interest in breathing: “Tactile stimulation in newborn infants with inadequate respiration at birth: A systematic review.” Now there is a title that grabs the attention of every frontline pediatrician who has sweated through those minutes that seemed like hours in the delivery room when some little rascal has decided that breathing isn’t a priority.

Of course, your great grandmother and everyone else knew what needed to be done – the obstetrician hung the baby by his or her ankles and slapped it on the bottom a couple of times. But you went to medical school and learned that was barbaric. Instead, you modeled the behavior of the residents and delivery room nurses who had more refined techniques such as heel flicking and vigorous spine rubbing. You never thought to ask if there was any science behind those activities because everyone did them.

Well, the authors of the article in Pediatrics, writing on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and Neonatal Life Support Task Force, thought the time had come to turn over a few stones and see if tactile stimulation was a benefit in resuscitation. Beginning with 2,455 possibly relevant articles, they quickly (I suspect they would quibble with the “quickly” part) winnowed these down to two observational studies, one of which was rejected because of “critical risk of bias.” The surviving study showed a reduction in tracheal intubation in infants who had received tactile stimulation. However, the authors felt that the “certainty of evidence was very low.”

So, there you have it. Aren’t you glad you didn’t invest 15 or 20 minutes discovering what you probably had guessed already? You can thank me later.

You already suspected that it may not help. However, like any good physician, what you really wanted to know is whether were you doing any harm by heel flicking and spine rubbing. And I bet you already had an opinion about the answer to that question. During your training, you may have seen delivery room personnel who were clearly too vigorous in their tactile stimulation and/or too persistent in their heel flicking and spine rubbing when the next steps in resuscitation needed to be taken. That’s the next study that needs to be done. I hope that study finds that tactile stimulation may not help but as long as it is done using specific techniques and within certain temporal parameters it does no harm.

I was never much for heel flicking. My favorite tactile stimulation was encircling the pokey infant’s chest in my hand, gently compressing and then quickly releasing a couple of times. My hope was that by mimicking the birth process the sensors in the infant’s chest wall would remind him it was time to breathe. That, and a silent plea to Mother Nature, worked most of the time.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Recently, I encountered a study in Pediatrics that hoped to answer the question of whether there was any benefit to tactile stimulation in those nerve-rattling moments when a newborn didn’t seem to take much interest in breathing: “Tactile stimulation in newborn infants with inadequate respiration at birth: A systematic review.” Now there is a title that grabs the attention of every frontline pediatrician who has sweated through those minutes that seemed like hours in the delivery room when some little rascal has decided that breathing isn’t a priority.

Of course, your great grandmother and everyone else knew what needed to be done – the obstetrician hung the baby by his or her ankles and slapped it on the bottom a couple of times. But you went to medical school and learned that was barbaric. Instead, you modeled the behavior of the residents and delivery room nurses who had more refined techniques such as heel flicking and vigorous spine rubbing. You never thought to ask if there was any science behind those activities because everyone did them.

Well, the authors of the article in Pediatrics, writing on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and Neonatal Life Support Task Force, thought the time had come to turn over a few stones and see if tactile stimulation was a benefit in resuscitation. Beginning with 2,455 possibly relevant articles, they quickly (I suspect they would quibble with the “quickly” part) winnowed these down to two observational studies, one of which was rejected because of “critical risk of bias.” The surviving study showed a reduction in tracheal intubation in infants who had received tactile stimulation. However, the authors felt that the “certainty of evidence was very low.”

So, there you have it. Aren’t you glad you didn’t invest 15 or 20 minutes discovering what you probably had guessed already? You can thank me later.

You already suspected that it may not help. However, like any good physician, what you really wanted to know is whether were you doing any harm by heel flicking and spine rubbing. And I bet you already had an opinion about the answer to that question. During your training, you may have seen delivery room personnel who were clearly too vigorous in their tactile stimulation and/or too persistent in their heel flicking and spine rubbing when the next steps in resuscitation needed to be taken. That’s the next study that needs to be done. I hope that study finds that tactile stimulation may not help but as long as it is done using specific techniques and within certain temporal parameters it does no harm.

I was never much for heel flicking. My favorite tactile stimulation was encircling the pokey infant’s chest in my hand, gently compressing and then quickly releasing a couple of times. My hope was that by mimicking the birth process the sensors in the infant’s chest wall would remind him it was time to breathe. That, and a silent plea to Mother Nature, worked most of the time.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Use of race-based diabetes screening thresholds could reduce the disparity that arises from current screening guidelines in the United States, new research suggests.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the recommended age for type 2 diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years among people with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

However, the diabetes rate among ethnic minorities aged 35-70 years in the United States is not just higher overall but, in certain populations, also occurs more frequently at a younger age and at lower BMIs, the new study indicates.

Among people with a BMI below 25 kg/m², the diabetes prevalence is two to four times higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans than among the U.S. White population.

And the authors of the new study, led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, predict that if screening begins at age 35 years, the BMI cut-off equivalent to 25 kg/m² for White Americans would be 18.5 kg/m2 for Hispanic and Black Americans and 20 kg/m² for Asian Americans.

“While diabetes has often been thought of as a disease that primarily affects adults with overweight or [obesity], our findings suggest that normal-weight adults in minority groups have surprisingly high rates of diabetes,” Dr. Aggarwal, senior resident physician in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“Assessing diabetes risks in certain racial/ethnic groups will be necessary, even if these adults do not have overweight or [obesity],” he added.

Not screening in this way “is a missed opportunity for early intervention,” he noted.  

And both the authors and an editorialist stress that the issue isn’t just theoretical.

“USPSTF recommendations influence what payers choose to cover, which in turn determines access to preventative services ... Addressing the staggering inequities in diabetes outcomes will require substantial investments in diabetes prevention and treatment, but making screening more equitable is a good place to start,” said senior author Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, of the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology and director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel, Boston.
 

Screen minorities at a younger age if current BMI threshold kept

In their study, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2018, Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues also calculated that, if the BMI threshold is kept at 25 kg/m², then the equivalent age cut-offs for Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans would be 23, 21, and 25 years, respectively, compared with 35 years for White Americans.

The findings were published online  in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The prevalence of diabetes in those aged 35-70 years in the NHANES population was 17.3% for Asian Americans and 12.5% for those who were White (odds ratio, 1.51 vs. Whites). Among Black Americans and Mexican Americans, the prevalence was 20.7% and 20.6%, respectively, almost twice the prevalence in Whites (OR, 1.85 and 1.80). For other Hispanic Americans, the prevalence was 16.4% (OR, 1.37 vs. Whites). All of those differences were significant, compared with White Americans.

Undiagnosed diabetes was also significantly more common among minority populations, at 27.6%, 22.8%, 21.2%, and 23.5% for Asian, Black, Mexican, and other Hispanic Americans, respectively, versus 12.5% for White Americans.
 

‘The time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance’

“While there is more work to be done on carefully examining the long-term risk–benefit trade-off of various diabetes screening, I believe the time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance on the use of lower thresholds for screening higher-risk individuals,” Dr. Kazi told this news organization.

The author of an accompanying editorial agrees, noting that in a recent commentary the USPSTF, itself, “acknowledged the persistent inequalities across the screening-to-treatment continuum that result in racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.”

And the USPSTF “emphasized the need to improve systems of care to ensure equitable and consistent delivery of high-quality preventive and treatment services, with special attention to racial/ethnic groups who may experience worse health outcomes,” continues Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.

For other conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease, the USPSTF already recommends risk-based preventive services.

“To address the current inequity in diabetes screening, the USPSTF should apply the same consideration to its diabetes screening recommendation,” she notes.
 

‘Implementation will require an eye for pragmatism’

Asked about how this recommendation might be carried out in the real world, Dr. Aggarwal said in an interview that, because all three minority groups with normal weight had similar diabetes risk profiles to White adults with overweight, “one way for clinicians to easily implement these findings is by screening all Asian, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 35-70 years with normal weight for diabetes, similarly to how all White adults ages 35-70 years with overweight are currently recommended for screening.”

Dr. Kazi said: “I believe that implementation will require an eye for pragmatism,” noting that another option would be to have screening algorithms embedded in the electronic health record to flag individuals who qualify.

In any case, “the simplicity of the current one-size-fits-all approach is alluring, but it is profoundly inequitable. The more I look at the empiric evidence on diabetes burden in our communities, the more the status quo becomes untenable.”

However, Dr. Kazi also noted, “the benefit of any screening program relates to what we do with the information. The key is to ensure that folks identified as having diabetes – or better still prediabetes – receive timely lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to avert its long-term complications.”

This study was supported by institutional funds from the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Kazi, and Dr. Ngo-Metzger have reported no relevant relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of race-based diabetes screening thresholds could reduce the disparity that arises from current screening guidelines in the United States, new research suggests.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the recommended age for type 2 diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years among people with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

However, the diabetes rate among ethnic minorities aged 35-70 years in the United States is not just higher overall but, in certain populations, also occurs more frequently at a younger age and at lower BMIs, the new study indicates.

Among people with a BMI below 25 kg/m², the diabetes prevalence is two to four times higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans than among the U.S. White population.

And the authors of the new study, led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, predict that if screening begins at age 35 years, the BMI cut-off equivalent to 25 kg/m² for White Americans would be 18.5 kg/m2 for Hispanic and Black Americans and 20 kg/m² for Asian Americans.

“While diabetes has often been thought of as a disease that primarily affects adults with overweight or [obesity], our findings suggest that normal-weight adults in minority groups have surprisingly high rates of diabetes,” Dr. Aggarwal, senior resident physician in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“Assessing diabetes risks in certain racial/ethnic groups will be necessary, even if these adults do not have overweight or [obesity],” he added.

Not screening in this way “is a missed opportunity for early intervention,” he noted.  

And both the authors and an editorialist stress that the issue isn’t just theoretical.

“USPSTF recommendations influence what payers choose to cover, which in turn determines access to preventative services ... Addressing the staggering inequities in diabetes outcomes will require substantial investments in diabetes prevention and treatment, but making screening more equitable is a good place to start,” said senior author Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, of the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology and director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel, Boston.
 

Screen minorities at a younger age if current BMI threshold kept

In their study, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2018, Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues also calculated that, if the BMI threshold is kept at 25 kg/m², then the equivalent age cut-offs for Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans would be 23, 21, and 25 years, respectively, compared with 35 years for White Americans.

The findings were published online  in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The prevalence of diabetes in those aged 35-70 years in the NHANES population was 17.3% for Asian Americans and 12.5% for those who were White (odds ratio, 1.51 vs. Whites). Among Black Americans and Mexican Americans, the prevalence was 20.7% and 20.6%, respectively, almost twice the prevalence in Whites (OR, 1.85 and 1.80). For other Hispanic Americans, the prevalence was 16.4% (OR, 1.37 vs. Whites). All of those differences were significant, compared with White Americans.

Undiagnosed diabetes was also significantly more common among minority populations, at 27.6%, 22.8%, 21.2%, and 23.5% for Asian, Black, Mexican, and other Hispanic Americans, respectively, versus 12.5% for White Americans.
 

‘The time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance’

“While there is more work to be done on carefully examining the long-term risk–benefit trade-off of various diabetes screening, I believe the time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance on the use of lower thresholds for screening higher-risk individuals,” Dr. Kazi told this news organization.

The author of an accompanying editorial agrees, noting that in a recent commentary the USPSTF, itself, “acknowledged the persistent inequalities across the screening-to-treatment continuum that result in racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.”

And the USPSTF “emphasized the need to improve systems of care to ensure equitable and consistent delivery of high-quality preventive and treatment services, with special attention to racial/ethnic groups who may experience worse health outcomes,” continues Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.

For other conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease, the USPSTF already recommends risk-based preventive services.

“To address the current inequity in diabetes screening, the USPSTF should apply the same consideration to its diabetes screening recommendation,” she notes.
 

‘Implementation will require an eye for pragmatism’

Asked about how this recommendation might be carried out in the real world, Dr. Aggarwal said in an interview that, because all three minority groups with normal weight had similar diabetes risk profiles to White adults with overweight, “one way for clinicians to easily implement these findings is by screening all Asian, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 35-70 years with normal weight for diabetes, similarly to how all White adults ages 35-70 years with overweight are currently recommended for screening.”

Dr. Kazi said: “I believe that implementation will require an eye for pragmatism,” noting that another option would be to have screening algorithms embedded in the electronic health record to flag individuals who qualify.

In any case, “the simplicity of the current one-size-fits-all approach is alluring, but it is profoundly inequitable. The more I look at the empiric evidence on diabetes burden in our communities, the more the status quo becomes untenable.”

However, Dr. Kazi also noted, “the benefit of any screening program relates to what we do with the information. The key is to ensure that folks identified as having diabetes – or better still prediabetes – receive timely lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to avert its long-term complications.”

This study was supported by institutional funds from the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Kazi, and Dr. Ngo-Metzger have reported no relevant relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of race-based diabetes screening thresholds could reduce the disparity that arises from current screening guidelines in the United States, new research suggests.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the recommended age for type 2 diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years among people with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

However, the diabetes rate among ethnic minorities aged 35-70 years in the United States is not just higher overall but, in certain populations, also occurs more frequently at a younger age and at lower BMIs, the new study indicates.

Among people with a BMI below 25 kg/m², the diabetes prevalence is two to four times higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans than among the U.S. White population.

And the authors of the new study, led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, predict that if screening begins at age 35 years, the BMI cut-off equivalent to 25 kg/m² for White Americans would be 18.5 kg/m2 for Hispanic and Black Americans and 20 kg/m² for Asian Americans.

“While diabetes has often been thought of as a disease that primarily affects adults with overweight or [obesity], our findings suggest that normal-weight adults in minority groups have surprisingly high rates of diabetes,” Dr. Aggarwal, senior resident physician in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“Assessing diabetes risks in certain racial/ethnic groups will be necessary, even if these adults do not have overweight or [obesity],” he added.

Not screening in this way “is a missed opportunity for early intervention,” he noted.  

And both the authors and an editorialist stress that the issue isn’t just theoretical.

“USPSTF recommendations influence what payers choose to cover, which in turn determines access to preventative services ... Addressing the staggering inequities in diabetes outcomes will require substantial investments in diabetes prevention and treatment, but making screening more equitable is a good place to start,” said senior author Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, of the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology and director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel, Boston.
 

Screen minorities at a younger age if current BMI threshold kept

In their study, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2018, Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues also calculated that, if the BMI threshold is kept at 25 kg/m², then the equivalent age cut-offs for Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans would be 23, 21, and 25 years, respectively, compared with 35 years for White Americans.

The findings were published online  in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The prevalence of diabetes in those aged 35-70 years in the NHANES population was 17.3% for Asian Americans and 12.5% for those who were White (odds ratio, 1.51 vs. Whites). Among Black Americans and Mexican Americans, the prevalence was 20.7% and 20.6%, respectively, almost twice the prevalence in Whites (OR, 1.85 and 1.80). For other Hispanic Americans, the prevalence was 16.4% (OR, 1.37 vs. Whites). All of those differences were significant, compared with White Americans.

Undiagnosed diabetes was also significantly more common among minority populations, at 27.6%, 22.8%, 21.2%, and 23.5% for Asian, Black, Mexican, and other Hispanic Americans, respectively, versus 12.5% for White Americans.
 

‘The time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance’

“While there is more work to be done on carefully examining the long-term risk–benefit trade-off of various diabetes screening, I believe the time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance on the use of lower thresholds for screening higher-risk individuals,” Dr. Kazi told this news organization.

The author of an accompanying editorial agrees, noting that in a recent commentary the USPSTF, itself, “acknowledged the persistent inequalities across the screening-to-treatment continuum that result in racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.”

And the USPSTF “emphasized the need to improve systems of care to ensure equitable and consistent delivery of high-quality preventive and treatment services, with special attention to racial/ethnic groups who may experience worse health outcomes,” continues Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.

For other conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease, the USPSTF already recommends risk-based preventive services.

“To address the current inequity in diabetes screening, the USPSTF should apply the same consideration to its diabetes screening recommendation,” she notes.
 

‘Implementation will require an eye for pragmatism’

Asked about how this recommendation might be carried out in the real world, Dr. Aggarwal said in an interview that, because all three minority groups with normal weight had similar diabetes risk profiles to White adults with overweight, “one way for clinicians to easily implement these findings is by screening all Asian, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 35-70 years with normal weight for diabetes, similarly to how all White adults ages 35-70 years with overweight are currently recommended for screening.”

Dr. Kazi said: “I believe that implementation will require an eye for pragmatism,” noting that another option would be to have screening algorithms embedded in the electronic health record to flag individuals who qualify.

In any case, “the simplicity of the current one-size-fits-all approach is alluring, but it is profoundly inequitable. The more I look at the empiric evidence on diabetes burden in our communities, the more the status quo becomes untenable.”

However, Dr. Kazi also noted, “the benefit of any screening program relates to what we do with the information. The key is to ensure that folks identified as having diabetes – or better still prediabetes – receive timely lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to avert its long-term complications.”

This study was supported by institutional funds from the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Kazi, and Dr. Ngo-Metzger have reported no relevant relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I believe that the most important recommendation from the American Heart Association in recent years is to confirm office blood pressure (BP) readings with repeated home BP measurements, for both diagnosis and management of hypertension. Office BPs are notoriously inaccurate, because it is exceedingly difficult to measure BP properly in a busy office setting. Even when measured correctly, the office BP does not accurately reflect a person’s BP throughout the day, which is the best predictor of cardiovascular damage from hypertension.

Office BPs are notoriously inaccurate, because it is exceedingly difficult to measure BP properly in a busy office setting.

Among the problems with relying on office BP readings:We would treat many people for hypertension who are not hypertensive, because 15% to 30% of those with elevated office BP readings have “white-coat” hypertension, which does not require medication.¹ White-coat hypertension can only be diagnosed with home BP readings or 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring.

We would miss the diagnosis of hypertension in patients with “masked” hypertension—that is, people who have normal BP in the office but elevated ambulatory BP. It is estimated that 12% of US adults have masked hypertension.²

We would overtreat some patients who have hypertension and undertreat others, since office BP measurements can underestimate BP by an average of 24/14 mm Hg and overestimate BP by an average of 33/23 mm Hg.³

In this issue of JFP, Spaulding and colleagues⁴ provide an extensive summary of the research that supports the recommendation for home BP measurements. Here are 3 key takeaways:

1. Use an automated BP monitor to measure BP in the office. Automated BP monitors that take repeated BPs over the course of about 5 minutes and average the results provide a much better estimate of 24-hour BP. It is worth the extra time and may be the only basis for making decisions about medications if a patient is unwilling or unable to take home BP readings.
2. Provide training to patients who are willing to monitor their BP at home. Explain how to take their BP properly and instruct them to record at least 12 readings over the course of 3 days prior to office visits.
3. Recommend patients use a validated BP monitor that uses the brachial artery for measurement, not the wrist (visit www.stridebp.org/bp-monitors and choose “Home”).

I believe that the most important recommendation from the American Heart Association in recent years is to confirm office blood pressure (BP) readings with repeated home BP measurements, for both diagnosis and management of hypertension. Office BPs are notoriously inaccurate, because it is exceedingly difficult to measure BP properly in a busy office setting. Even when measured correctly, the office BP does not accurately reflect a person’s BP throughout the day, which is the best predictor of cardiovascular damage from hypertension.

Office BPs are notoriously inaccurate, because it is exceedingly difficult to measure BP properly in a busy office setting.

Among the problems with relying on office BP readings:We would treat many people for hypertension who are not hypertensive, because 15% to 30% of those with elevated office BP readings have “white-coat” hypertension, which does not require medication.¹ White-coat hypertension can only be diagnosed with home BP readings or 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring.

We would miss the diagnosis of hypertension in patients with “masked” hypertension—that is, people who have normal BP in the office but elevated ambulatory BP. It is estimated that 12% of US adults have masked hypertension.²

We would overtreat some patients who have hypertension and undertreat others, since office BP measurements can underestimate BP by an average of 24/14 mm Hg and overestimate BP by an average of 33/23 mm Hg.³

In this issue of JFP, Spaulding and colleagues⁴ provide an extensive summary of the research that supports the recommendation for home BP measurements. Here are 3 key takeaways:

1. Use an automated BP monitor to measure BP in the office. Automated BP monitors that take repeated BPs over the course of about 5 minutes and average the results provide a much better estimate of 24-hour BP. It is worth the extra time and may be the only basis for making decisions about medications if a patient is unwilling or unable to take home BP readings.
2. Provide training to patients who are willing to monitor their BP at home. Explain how to take their BP properly and instruct them to record at least 12 readings over the course of 3 days prior to office visits.
3. Recommend patients use a validated BP monitor that uses the brachial artery for measurement, not the wrist (visit www.stridebp.org/bp-monitors and choose “Home”).

I believe that the most important recommendation from the American Heart Association in recent years is to confirm office blood pressure (BP) readings with repeated home BP measurements, for both diagnosis and management of hypertension. Office BPs are notoriously inaccurate, because it is exceedingly difficult to measure BP properly in a busy office setting. Even when measured correctly, the office BP does not accurately reflect a person’s BP throughout the day, which is the best predictor of cardiovascular damage from hypertension.

Office BPs are notoriously inaccurate, because it is exceedingly difficult to measure BP properly in a busy office setting.

Among the problems with relying on office BP readings:We would treat many people for hypertension who are not hypertensive, because 15% to 30% of those with elevated office BP readings have “white-coat” hypertension, which does not require medication.¹ White-coat hypertension can only be diagnosed with home BP readings or 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring.

We would miss the diagnosis of hypertension in patients with “masked” hypertension—that is, people who have normal BP in the office but elevated ambulatory BP. It is estimated that 12% of US adults have masked hypertension.²

We would overtreat some patients who have hypertension and undertreat others, since office BP measurements can underestimate BP by an average of 24/14 mm Hg and overestimate BP by an average of 33/23 mm Hg.³

In this issue of JFP, Spaulding and colleagues⁴ provide an extensive summary of the research that supports the recommendation for home BP measurements. Here are 3 key takeaways:

1. Use an automated BP monitor to measure BP in the office. Automated BP monitors that take repeated BPs over the course of about 5 minutes and average the results provide a much better estimate of 24-hour BP. It is worth the extra time and may be the only basis for making decisions about medications if a patient is unwilling or unable to take home BP readings.
2. Provide training to patients who are willing to monitor their BP at home. Explain how to take their BP properly and instruct them to record at least 12 readings over the course of 3 days prior to office visits.
3. Recommend patients use a validated BP monitor that uses the brachial artery for measurement, not the wrist (visit www.stridebp.org/bp-monitors and choose “Home”).