SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. – A new study shows that an Enhanced Recovery in Liver Surgery (ERLS) program reduced costs at a high-volume liver surgery center. The savings were lower in patients receiving epidurals, which is prompting the center to explore alternative methods of pain control. The program reduced costs in minor hepatectomies, but not major hepatectomies.

“It has been clearly demonstrated that patients benefit from enhanced recovery programs – they’re getting home sooner, they’re on fewer opioids, and they do better. What’s less clear is if it’s cost effective. If you can demonstrate lower costs, then all the major stakeholders involved would potentially benefit,” Michael Egger, MD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.), said in an interview.

The study was conducted at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Egger presented the research at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association.

The liver program is similar to other enhanced recovery protocols and includes use of nonnarcotic analgesia, early ambulation, and early initiation of oral diet. Aspects unique to liver surgery include avoidance of drains and tubes placed in the operating room and limitation of intravenous fluids during and following surgery.

The researchers analyzed data from 212 patients who underwent hepatectomy between February 2012 and September 2016: 72 patients who were in an ERLS program and 140 were enrolled in a traditional recovery (TR) program. The ERLS program included patient education, narcotic-sparing anesthesia and analgesia, rapid diet advancement, restrictive fluid use, early ambulation, and avoidance of drains and tubes.

A total of 32% of patients in the ERLS group underwent major hepatectomy, compared to 64% of patients in the TR group. Forty-three percent in the ERLS group had an epidural, compared with 75% in the TR group.

The ERLS group had a shorter median length of stay (5 days vs. 6 days; P = .001) and had a 9.1% reduction in costs (P = .001). The largest cost differences were attributable to lab costs (–15.0%), room and board (–13.9%), and professional costs (–19.3%; all P less than .05).

ERLS was not associated with a statistically significant cost saving in patients undergoing major hepatectomy. In minor hepatectomy, ERLS was associated with a 17.6% reduction in overall costs (P less than .05). There was no reduction in patients who had a hospital stay over 90 days

Among patients who received patient-controlled analgesia, those in the ERLS program had a 32.0% reduction in overall costs (P less than .001), largely driven by a 34.3% reduction in lab costs, a 33.3% reduction in room and board, a 51.6% reduction in professional costs, and a 22.5% reduction in pharmacy costs (all P less than .05).

There was also no difference in cost between the two programs in patients who underwent an epidural, which suggests an avenue for improvement. “We’re looking at other regional pain blocks, such as transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block using a long-acting analgesic, and that’s our trend going forward. We’re hoping we can reduce some of those increased costs associated with the epidural, but still reap the benefits of improved pain control and reduction of narcotics use,” said Dr. Egger.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. Dr. Egger reported having no financial disclosures.

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. – A new study shows that an Enhanced Recovery in Liver Surgery (ERLS) program reduced costs at a high-volume liver surgery center. The savings were lower in patients receiving epidurals, which is prompting the center to explore alternative methods of pain control. The program reduced costs in minor hepatectomies, but not major hepatectomies.

“It has been clearly demonstrated that patients benefit from enhanced recovery programs – they’re getting home sooner, they’re on fewer opioids, and they do better. What’s less clear is if it’s cost effective. If you can demonstrate lower costs, then all the major stakeholders involved would potentially benefit,” Michael Egger, MD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.), said in an interview.

The study was conducted at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Egger presented the research at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association.

The liver program is similar to other enhanced recovery protocols and includes use of nonnarcotic analgesia, early ambulation, and early initiation of oral diet. Aspects unique to liver surgery include avoidance of drains and tubes placed in the operating room and limitation of intravenous fluids during and following surgery.

The researchers analyzed data from 212 patients who underwent hepatectomy between February 2012 and September 2016: 72 patients who were in an ERLS program and 140 were enrolled in a traditional recovery (TR) program. The ERLS program included patient education, narcotic-sparing anesthesia and analgesia, rapid diet advancement, restrictive fluid use, early ambulation, and avoidance of drains and tubes.

A total of 32% of patients in the ERLS group underwent major hepatectomy, compared to 64% of patients in the TR group. Forty-three percent in the ERLS group had an epidural, compared with 75% in the TR group.

The ERLS group had a shorter median length of stay (5 days vs. 6 days; P = .001) and had a 9.1% reduction in costs (P = .001). The largest cost differences were attributable to lab costs (–15.0%), room and board (–13.9%), and professional costs (–19.3%; all P less than .05).

ERLS was not associated with a statistically significant cost saving in patients undergoing major hepatectomy. In minor hepatectomy, ERLS was associated with a 17.6% reduction in overall costs (P less than .05). There was no reduction in patients who had a hospital stay over 90 days

Among patients who received patient-controlled analgesia, those in the ERLS program had a 32.0% reduction in overall costs (P less than .001), largely driven by a 34.3% reduction in lab costs, a 33.3% reduction in room and board, a 51.6% reduction in professional costs, and a 22.5% reduction in pharmacy costs (all P less than .05).

There was also no difference in cost between the two programs in patients who underwent an epidural, which suggests an avenue for improvement. “We’re looking at other regional pain blocks, such as transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block using a long-acting analgesic, and that’s our trend going forward. We’re hoping we can reduce some of those increased costs associated with the epidural, but still reap the benefits of improved pain control and reduction of narcotics use,” said Dr. Egger.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. Dr. Egger reported having no financial disclosures.

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. – A new study shows that an Enhanced Recovery in Liver Surgery (ERLS) program reduced costs at a high-volume liver surgery center. The savings were lower in patients receiving epidurals, which is prompting the center to explore alternative methods of pain control. The program reduced costs in minor hepatectomies, but not major hepatectomies.

“It has been clearly demonstrated that patients benefit from enhanced recovery programs – they’re getting home sooner, they’re on fewer opioids, and they do better. What’s less clear is if it’s cost effective. If you can demonstrate lower costs, then all the major stakeholders involved would potentially benefit,” Michael Egger, MD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.), said in an interview.

The study was conducted at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Egger presented the research at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association.

The liver program is similar to other enhanced recovery protocols and includes use of nonnarcotic analgesia, early ambulation, and early initiation of oral diet. Aspects unique to liver surgery include avoidance of drains and tubes placed in the operating room and limitation of intravenous fluids during and following surgery.

The researchers analyzed data from 212 patients who underwent hepatectomy between February 2012 and September 2016: 72 patients who were in an ERLS program and 140 were enrolled in a traditional recovery (TR) program. The ERLS program included patient education, narcotic-sparing anesthesia and analgesia, rapid diet advancement, restrictive fluid use, early ambulation, and avoidance of drains and tubes.

A total of 32% of patients in the ERLS group underwent major hepatectomy, compared to 64% of patients in the TR group. Forty-three percent in the ERLS group had an epidural, compared with 75% in the TR group.

The ERLS group had a shorter median length of stay (5 days vs. 6 days; P = .001) and had a 9.1% reduction in costs (P = .001). The largest cost differences were attributable to lab costs (–15.0%), room and board (–13.9%), and professional costs (–19.3%; all P less than .05).

ERLS was not associated with a statistically significant cost saving in patients undergoing major hepatectomy. In minor hepatectomy, ERLS was associated with a 17.6% reduction in overall costs (P less than .05). There was no reduction in patients who had a hospital stay over 90 days

Among patients who received patient-controlled analgesia, those in the ERLS program had a 32.0% reduction in overall costs (P less than .001), largely driven by a 34.3% reduction in lab costs, a 33.3% reduction in room and board, a 51.6% reduction in professional costs, and a 22.5% reduction in pharmacy costs (all P less than .05).

There was also no difference in cost between the two programs in patients who underwent an epidural, which suggests an avenue for improvement. “We’re looking at other regional pain blocks, such as transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block using a long-acting analgesic, and that’s our trend going forward. We’re hoping we can reduce some of those increased costs associated with the epidural, but still reap the benefits of improved pain control and reduction of narcotics use,” said Dr. Egger.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. Dr. Egger reported having no financial disclosures.

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. – Surgeons who perform five or more pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or Whipple operations per year had significant cost reductions, compared with lower-volume surgeons, but there was no such relationship among surgeons performing distal pancreatectomy procedures.

The finding suggests that “high volume” may need to be defined differently for the two procedures to maximize cost effectiveness.

In the age of increased pressure to reduce health care costs, and with the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) set to be introduced, referring pancreatic procedures to high-volume centers has the potential to increase efficiency and reduce costs, but researchers are still working to determine how high a volume is required to realize such savings. High volume has been defined by as few as two operations per year and as many as 200, according to Brooke Vuong, MD, who presented the study at at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association.

There have been few studies of the impact of surgeon volume on costs and outcomes, and many of those rely on databases and emphasize academic medical centers.

“There was a significant cost reduction for a low-volume threshold of five, so it raises the idea that minimum volume requirements have value,” said Dr. Vuong, who is a surgical oncology fellow at the John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif.

The study, which is the first to look at detailed costs and value drivers for individual surgeons performing pancreatic surgery, suggests more work needs to be done to determine a high-volume cutoff for distal pancreatectomy (DP). The study, however, also revealed another cost-saving mechanism: After participating surgeons began sharing financial data with each other, overall costs dropped by about 7%.

“The sharing of detailed financial data with [other surgeons] on a regular basis provides the opportunity to evaluate practice patterns and thereby reduce cost, and this is especially important as health care systems and individual physicians are held accountable for value-based care,” Dr. Vuong said.

That point struck a chord with one audience member. “There’s nothing like seeing your data among your peers to drive down your length-of-stay costs and make you pay real attention to complications,” one surgeon said during the Q & A period.

The researchers examined data from procedures performed at 14 hospitals in five different states. The analysis included 54 surgeons and all patients who underwent DP (n = 270) or PD (n = 526) between January 2014 and July 2017. Average length of stay (LOS), 30-day mortality, and readmission rates were collected and compared by surgeon volume. Beginning in 2016, the team conducted bimonthly video conferences to share data in a hepatobiliary clinical performance group.

High-volume surgeons had PD costs of $21,026, compared with $24,706 among low-volume surgeons (difference, $3,680; P = .005). Specific areas of savings included operating room and anesthesia (P = .005); room and board (P = .03), and ICU (P = .042). Average LOS was 9 days among high-volume surgeons, compared with 11 days among low-volume surgeons (P less than .001).

In contrast, the researchers found no significant difference in overall cost between high-volume ($14,016) and low-volume ($15,856) surgeons performing DP, though there was a lower average LOS among high-volume surgeons (6 days vs. 7 days; P = .001). High-volume surgeons also had a lower associated frequency of blood transfusions (10.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .007).

In PD surgeries, low-volume surgeons were more likely to produce a cost in the top quartile than were high-volume surgeons (odds ratio, 6.89; P less than .001). The same was true with DP surgeries (odds ratio, 5.78; P less than .001).

The researchers compared surgical costs from before and after the hepatobiliary clinical performance group was established and found a median decrease of $1,397, from $19,411 in 2014-2015 to $18,014 for 2016 (P = .013).

Readmission rates and 30-day mortality were not significantly different between high-volume and low-volume surgeons in either procedure.

The study received no outside support. Dr. Vuong reported having no financial disclosures..

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. – Surgeons who perform five or more pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or Whipple operations per year had significant cost reductions, compared with lower-volume surgeons, but there was no such relationship among surgeons performing distal pancreatectomy procedures.

The finding suggests that “high volume” may need to be defined differently for the two procedures to maximize cost effectiveness.

In the age of increased pressure to reduce health care costs, and with the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) set to be introduced, referring pancreatic procedures to high-volume centers has the potential to increase efficiency and reduce costs, but researchers are still working to determine how high a volume is required to realize such savings. High volume has been defined by as few as two operations per year and as many as 200, according to Brooke Vuong, MD, who presented the study at at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association.

There have been few studies of the impact of surgeon volume on costs and outcomes, and many of those rely on databases and emphasize academic medical centers.

“There was a significant cost reduction for a low-volume threshold of five, so it raises the idea that minimum volume requirements have value,” said Dr. Vuong, who is a surgical oncology fellow at the John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif.

The study, which is the first to look at detailed costs and value drivers for individual surgeons performing pancreatic surgery, suggests more work needs to be done to determine a high-volume cutoff for distal pancreatectomy (DP). The study, however, also revealed another cost-saving mechanism: After participating surgeons began sharing financial data with each other, overall costs dropped by about 7%.

“The sharing of detailed financial data with [other surgeons] on a regular basis provides the opportunity to evaluate practice patterns and thereby reduce cost, and this is especially important as health care systems and individual physicians are held accountable for value-based care,” Dr. Vuong said.

That point struck a chord with one audience member. “There’s nothing like seeing your data among your peers to drive down your length-of-stay costs and make you pay real attention to complications,” one surgeon said during the Q & A period.

The researchers examined data from procedures performed at 14 hospitals in five different states. The analysis included 54 surgeons and all patients who underwent DP (n = 270) or PD (n = 526) between January 2014 and July 2017. Average length of stay (LOS), 30-day mortality, and readmission rates were collected and compared by surgeon volume. Beginning in 2016, the team conducted bimonthly video conferences to share data in a hepatobiliary clinical performance group.

High-volume surgeons had PD costs of $21,026, compared with $24,706 among low-volume surgeons (difference, $3,680; P = .005). Specific areas of savings included operating room and anesthesia (P = .005); room and board (P = .03), and ICU (P = .042). Average LOS was 9 days among high-volume surgeons, compared with 11 days among low-volume surgeons (P less than .001).

In contrast, the researchers found no significant difference in overall cost between high-volume ($14,016) and low-volume ($15,856) surgeons performing DP, though there was a lower average LOS among high-volume surgeons (6 days vs. 7 days; P = .001). High-volume surgeons also had a lower associated frequency of blood transfusions (10.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .007).

In PD surgeries, low-volume surgeons were more likely to produce a cost in the top quartile than were high-volume surgeons (odds ratio, 6.89; P less than .001). The same was true with DP surgeries (odds ratio, 5.78; P less than .001).

The researchers compared surgical costs from before and after the hepatobiliary clinical performance group was established and found a median decrease of $1,397, from $19,411 in 2014-2015 to $18,014 for 2016 (P = .013).

Readmission rates and 30-day mortality were not significantly different between high-volume and low-volume surgeons in either procedure.

The study received no outside support. Dr. Vuong reported having no financial disclosures..

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. – Surgeons who perform five or more pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or Whipple operations per year had significant cost reductions, compared with lower-volume surgeons, but there was no such relationship among surgeons performing distal pancreatectomy procedures.

The finding suggests that “high volume” may need to be defined differently for the two procedures to maximize cost effectiveness.

In the age of increased pressure to reduce health care costs, and with the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) set to be introduced, referring pancreatic procedures to high-volume centers has the potential to increase efficiency and reduce costs, but researchers are still working to determine how high a volume is required to realize such savings. High volume has been defined by as few as two operations per year and as many as 200, according to Brooke Vuong, MD, who presented the study at at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association.

There have been few studies of the impact of surgeon volume on costs and outcomes, and many of those rely on databases and emphasize academic medical centers.

“There was a significant cost reduction for a low-volume threshold of five, so it raises the idea that minimum volume requirements have value,” said Dr. Vuong, who is a surgical oncology fellow at the John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif.

The study, which is the first to look at detailed costs and value drivers for individual surgeons performing pancreatic surgery, suggests more work needs to be done to determine a high-volume cutoff for distal pancreatectomy (DP). The study, however, also revealed another cost-saving mechanism: After participating surgeons began sharing financial data with each other, overall costs dropped by about 7%.

“The sharing of detailed financial data with [other surgeons] on a regular basis provides the opportunity to evaluate practice patterns and thereby reduce cost, and this is especially important as health care systems and individual physicians are held accountable for value-based care,” Dr. Vuong said.

That point struck a chord with one audience member. “There’s nothing like seeing your data among your peers to drive down your length-of-stay costs and make you pay real attention to complications,” one surgeon said during the Q & A period.

The researchers examined data from procedures performed at 14 hospitals in five different states. The analysis included 54 surgeons and all patients who underwent DP (n = 270) or PD (n = 526) between January 2014 and July 2017. Average length of stay (LOS), 30-day mortality, and readmission rates were collected and compared by surgeon volume. Beginning in 2016, the team conducted bimonthly video conferences to share data in a hepatobiliary clinical performance group.

High-volume surgeons had PD costs of $21,026, compared with $24,706 among low-volume surgeons (difference, $3,680; P = .005). Specific areas of savings included operating room and anesthesia (P = .005); room and board (P = .03), and ICU (P = .042). Average LOS was 9 days among high-volume surgeons, compared with 11 days among low-volume surgeons (P less than .001).

In contrast, the researchers found no significant difference in overall cost between high-volume ($14,016) and low-volume ($15,856) surgeons performing DP, though there was a lower average LOS among high-volume surgeons (6 days vs. 7 days; P = .001). High-volume surgeons also had a lower associated frequency of blood transfusions (10.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .007).

In PD surgeries, low-volume surgeons were more likely to produce a cost in the top quartile than were high-volume surgeons (odds ratio, 6.89; P less than .001). The same was true with DP surgeries (odds ratio, 5.78; P less than .001).

The researchers compared surgical costs from before and after the hepatobiliary clinical performance group was established and found a median decrease of $1,397, from $19,411 in 2014-2015 to $18,014 for 2016 (P = .013).

Readmission rates and 30-day mortality were not significantly different between high-volume and low-volume surgeons in either procedure.

The study received no outside support. Dr. Vuong reported having no financial disclosures..

Lesions of porokeratosis are thought to arise from disordered keratinization, though the exact pathogenesis remains uncertain. At least 5 clinical subtypes of porokeratosis have been identified: porokeratosis of Mibelli, disseminated superficial porokeratosis and disseminated superficial actinic porokeratosis (DSAP), linear porokeratosis, punctuate porokeratosis, and porokeratosis palmaris et plantaris disseminata (PPPD).^1,2 Linear porokeratosis is a rare subtype with a clinical differential diagnosis that includes lichen striatus, linear lichen planus, linear verrucous epidermal nevus, segmental Darier disease, and incontinentia pigmenti.³ Definitive diagnosis of linear porokeratosis is made by histopathologic examination demonstrating a cornoid lamella, defined as a column of parakeratotic cells that lies at 45°to the surface of the epidermis and contains pyknotic basophilic nuclei.⁴ Patients with linear porokeratosis typically develop lesions along the lines of Blaschko in infancy or childhood.^5,6 Among the different subtypes of porokeratosis, linear porokeratosis demonstrates the highest rate of malignant transformation, therefore requiring close clinical observation.⁷

Case Report

An 83-year-old woman presented to the outpatient clinic with a large linear plaque on the right leg that had been present since birth. Ten years prior to presentation, a portion of the lesion started to bleed; biopsy of the area was performed by an outside provider demonstrating squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), which was treated with wide local excision. One year prior to presentation, a separate portion of the plaque was biopsied by an outside provider and another diagnosis of SCC was made.

On examination performed during the initial presentation to our clinic, there was a well-demarcated tan to violaceous linear plaque present at the lower buttock and extending along the posterior leg to the skin overlying the Achilles tendon and dorsal aspect of the right foot. Within the plaque, there were areas of atrophy and areas of inflammation, induration, and hyperkeratosis (Figures 1 and 2). Two punch biopsies were performed: one from the edge of the plaque and one from a hyperkeratotic region within the plaque. Histology from the edge of the plaque demonstrated a cornoid lamella, consistent with a porokeratosis (Figure 3), whereas the histology from the hyperkeratotic region demonstrated a lichenoid infiltrate (Figure 4).

Several treatment options directed at the entire lesion were offered to the patient, but she declined these therapies and opted to address only those areas with clinical features of SCC, such as hyperkeratosis, bleeding, and rapid growth. Although biopsies performed by an outside provider were consistent with SCC, it had not been detected on biopsy performed during her initial visit to our clinic.

The patient was educated on the risk associated with her condition and instructed to follow up every 6 months to monitor for the development of SCC.

Comment

Porokeratosis is a disorder of keratinization with at least 5 clinical subtypes that share histologic similarities: porokeratosis of Mibelli, disseminated superficial porokeratosis and DSAP, linear porokeratosis, punctate porokeratosis, and PPPD.^1,2 Other less common variants of porokeratosis include porokeratosis ptychotropica (a verrucous variant confined to the perianal area) and congenital unilateral linear porokeratosis.^8,9

Linear porokeratosis appears in infancy or childhood with plaques that follow the lines of Blaschko.^5,6 Most commonly, it presents unilaterally with annular plaques and linear hyperkeratotic papules that preferentially affect the extremities, though it also may present in a more generalized form or appear in a zosteriform pattern.^10,11 Linear porokeratosis affects fewer than 20,000 individuals in the United States and accounts for fewer than 13% of all porokeratosis cases.^12,13

Despite its relatively low prevalence, early identification of linear porokeratosis is important due to its high oncogenic potential, with malignant transformation to basal cell carcinoma or, more commonly, SCC reported in 19% of reported cases.^1,5,7,14 The malignant transformation rate of linear porokeratosis is reported to be higher than rates seen in other porokeratosis subtypes (9.5%, 7.6%, and 3.4% for PPPD, porokeratosis of Mibelli, and DSAP, respectively).⁷ The risk of malignant transformation from porokeratosis increases with exposure to ionizing radiation, duration of the lesion, larger or coalescing lesions, and advanced age.^7,15,16 Histologic studies have provided support for correlation between lesion size and oncogenic potential, with greater numbers of mitotic cells and more abnormal DNA ploidy seen in larger lesions.¹⁷

Histopathology
All subtypes of porokeratosis share certain histopathologic features that aid in the diagnosis of the disorder.¹⁸ Identification of the clinically observed hyperkeratotic ridged border or cornoid lamella is the primary means of definitively diagnosing porokeratosis; however, cornoid lamellae may be observed in other conditions, including verruca vulgaris and actinic keratosis.^4,14

The cornoid lamella appears as a skewed column of densely packed parakeratotic cells with pyknotic basophilic nuclei extending through the stratum corneum from an epidermal invagination.⁴ Directly beneath the cornoid lamella, the granular layer is markedly diminished or absent, and cells of the stratum spinosum may demonstrate vacuolar changes or dyskeratosis.^4,19 The superficial layer of the cornoid lamella may appear to be more centrifugally located and the cornoid lamella may be seen in several locations throughout the lesion.^2,20 The degree of epidermal invagination, which is present under the cornoid lamella, varies by porokeratosis subtype; the central portion of the lesion may contain epidermis that ranges from hyperplastic to atrophic.² Shumack et al²¹ noted that histologic changes under the cornoid lamella may include a lichenoid tissue reaction, papillary dermal lymphocytic infiltrate, vacuolar changes, dyskeratosis, and liquefaction degeneration of the basal layer. Because many of these histologic features also can be identified in lichen planus, a biopsy of the edge of lesions of porokeratosis is essential for making the correct diagnosis.

Heritability
Although linear porokeratosis has no identified pattern of inheritance and appears sporadic in onset, reports have described concomitant occurrence of linear porokeratosis and DSAP as well as linear porokeratosis arising in children of parents who have a diagnosis of DSAP.^5,18,22,23 Based on these findings, it has been hypothesized that linear porokeratosis may represent a mosaic or segmental form of autosomal-dominant inherited subtypes of porokeratosis, such as DSAP.⁵ According to this hypothesis, loss of heterozygosity in patients with a DSAP mutation during early embryogenesis leads to proliferation of cells that are homozygous or hemizygous for the underlying mutation along lines of Blaschko.²⁴ It has been suggested that the allelic loss implicated in the development of linear porokeratosis is the first step in a multistage process of carcinogenesis, which may help to explain the higher rates of malignant transformation that can be seen in linear porokeratosis.²⁴

Management
Several treatment options exist for porokeratosis, including cryotherapy, topical 5-fluorouracil with or without adjunctive retinoid treatment, topical imiquimod, CO₂ laser, shave and linear excision, curettage, dermabrasion, and oral acitretin for widespread lesions.^1,25-29 One case report detailed successful treatment of adult-onset linear porokeratosis with tacrolimus ointment 0.1%.³⁰ Treatments for porokeratosis demonstrate variable degrees of success, with the aim of eradicating the clonal population of mutant keratinocytes.² Additionally, protection from UV radiation should be encouraged, especially in patients who have lesions that occur in areas of high actinic damage.¹

Conclusion

We report of a case of linear porokeratosis with associated multiple SCCs that developed within the lesion. Definitive diagnosis of linear porokeratosis is important due to the higher rate of malignant transformation than the rate seen in other porokeratoses. In larger lesions, appropriate sampling and orientation of the pathology specimen is essential for identifying cornoid lamellae, thus allowing for appropriate follow-up and management. Several treatment options are available, though evidence for the effectiveness of any particular therapy is lacking. Research has shed light on possible genetic and molecular abnormalities in linear porokeratosis, but the exact pathogenesis of the disorder remains unclear.

Lesions of porokeratosis are thought to arise from disordered keratinization, though the exact pathogenesis remains uncertain. At least 5 clinical subtypes of porokeratosis have been identified: porokeratosis of Mibelli, disseminated superficial porokeratosis and disseminated superficial actinic porokeratosis (DSAP), linear porokeratosis, punctuate porokeratosis, and porokeratosis palmaris et plantaris disseminata (PPPD).^1,2 Linear porokeratosis is a rare subtype with a clinical differential diagnosis that includes lichen striatus, linear lichen planus, linear verrucous epidermal nevus, segmental Darier disease, and incontinentia pigmenti.³ Definitive diagnosis of linear porokeratosis is made by histopathologic examination demonstrating a cornoid lamella, defined as a column of parakeratotic cells that lies at 45°to the surface of the epidermis and contains pyknotic basophilic nuclei.⁴ Patients with linear porokeratosis typically develop lesions along the lines of Blaschko in infancy or childhood.^5,6 Among the different subtypes of porokeratosis, linear porokeratosis demonstrates the highest rate of malignant transformation, therefore requiring close clinical observation.⁷

Case Report

An 83-year-old woman presented to the outpatient clinic with a large linear plaque on the right leg that had been present since birth. Ten years prior to presentation, a portion of the lesion started to bleed; biopsy of the area was performed by an outside provider demonstrating squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), which was treated with wide local excision. One year prior to presentation, a separate portion of the plaque was biopsied by an outside provider and another diagnosis of SCC was made.

On examination performed during the initial presentation to our clinic, there was a well-demarcated tan to violaceous linear plaque present at the lower buttock and extending along the posterior leg to the skin overlying the Achilles tendon and dorsal aspect of the right foot. Within the plaque, there were areas of atrophy and areas of inflammation, induration, and hyperkeratosis (Figures 1 and 2). Two punch biopsies were performed: one from the edge of the plaque and one from a hyperkeratotic region within the plaque. Histology from the edge of the plaque demonstrated a cornoid lamella, consistent with a porokeratosis (Figure 3), whereas the histology from the hyperkeratotic region demonstrated a lichenoid infiltrate (Figure 4).

Several treatment options directed at the entire lesion were offered to the patient, but she declined these therapies and opted to address only those areas with clinical features of SCC, such as hyperkeratosis, bleeding, and rapid growth. Although biopsies performed by an outside provider were consistent with SCC, it had not been detected on biopsy performed during her initial visit to our clinic.

The patient was educated on the risk associated with her condition and instructed to follow up every 6 months to monitor for the development of SCC.

Comment

Porokeratosis is a disorder of keratinization with at least 5 clinical subtypes that share histologic similarities: porokeratosis of Mibelli, disseminated superficial porokeratosis and DSAP, linear porokeratosis, punctate porokeratosis, and PPPD.^1,2 Other less common variants of porokeratosis include porokeratosis ptychotropica (a verrucous variant confined to the perianal area) and congenital unilateral linear porokeratosis.^8,9

Linear porokeratosis appears in infancy or childhood with plaques that follow the lines of Blaschko.^5,6 Most commonly, it presents unilaterally with annular plaques and linear hyperkeratotic papules that preferentially affect the extremities, though it also may present in a more generalized form or appear in a zosteriform pattern.^10,11 Linear porokeratosis affects fewer than 20,000 individuals in the United States and accounts for fewer than 13% of all porokeratosis cases.^12,13

Despite its relatively low prevalence, early identification of linear porokeratosis is important due to its high oncogenic potential, with malignant transformation to basal cell carcinoma or, more commonly, SCC reported in 19% of reported cases.^1,5,7,14 The malignant transformation rate of linear porokeratosis is reported to be higher than rates seen in other porokeratosis subtypes (9.5%, 7.6%, and 3.4% for PPPD, porokeratosis of Mibelli, and DSAP, respectively).⁷ The risk of malignant transformation from porokeratosis increases with exposure to ionizing radiation, duration of the lesion, larger or coalescing lesions, and advanced age.^7,15,16 Histologic studies have provided support for correlation between lesion size and oncogenic potential, with greater numbers of mitotic cells and more abnormal DNA ploidy seen in larger lesions.¹⁷

Histopathology
All subtypes of porokeratosis share certain histopathologic features that aid in the diagnosis of the disorder.¹⁸ Identification of the clinically observed hyperkeratotic ridged border or cornoid lamella is the primary means of definitively diagnosing porokeratosis; however, cornoid lamellae may be observed in other conditions, including verruca vulgaris and actinic keratosis.^4,14

The cornoid lamella appears as a skewed column of densely packed parakeratotic cells with pyknotic basophilic nuclei extending through the stratum corneum from an epidermal invagination.⁴ Directly beneath the cornoid lamella, the granular layer is markedly diminished or absent, and cells of the stratum spinosum may demonstrate vacuolar changes or dyskeratosis.^4,19 The superficial layer of the cornoid lamella may appear to be more centrifugally located and the cornoid lamella may be seen in several locations throughout the lesion.^2,20 The degree of epidermal invagination, which is present under the cornoid lamella, varies by porokeratosis subtype; the central portion of the lesion may contain epidermis that ranges from hyperplastic to atrophic.² Shumack et al²¹ noted that histologic changes under the cornoid lamella may include a lichenoid tissue reaction, papillary dermal lymphocytic infiltrate, vacuolar changes, dyskeratosis, and liquefaction degeneration of the basal layer. Because many of these histologic features also can be identified in lichen planus, a biopsy of the edge of lesions of porokeratosis is essential for making the correct diagnosis.

Heritability
Although linear porokeratosis has no identified pattern of inheritance and appears sporadic in onset, reports have described concomitant occurrence of linear porokeratosis and DSAP as well as linear porokeratosis arising in children of parents who have a diagnosis of DSAP.^5,18,22,23 Based on these findings, it has been hypothesized that linear porokeratosis may represent a mosaic or segmental form of autosomal-dominant inherited subtypes of porokeratosis, such as DSAP.⁵ According to this hypothesis, loss of heterozygosity in patients with a DSAP mutation during early embryogenesis leads to proliferation of cells that are homozygous or hemizygous for the underlying mutation along lines of Blaschko.²⁴ It has been suggested that the allelic loss implicated in the development of linear porokeratosis is the first step in a multistage process of carcinogenesis, which may help to explain the higher rates of malignant transformation that can be seen in linear porokeratosis.²⁴

Management
Several treatment options exist for porokeratosis, including cryotherapy, topical 5-fluorouracil with or without adjunctive retinoid treatment, topical imiquimod, CO₂ laser, shave and linear excision, curettage, dermabrasion, and oral acitretin for widespread lesions.^1,25-29 One case report detailed successful treatment of adult-onset linear porokeratosis with tacrolimus ointment 0.1%.³⁰ Treatments for porokeratosis demonstrate variable degrees of success, with the aim of eradicating the clonal population of mutant keratinocytes.² Additionally, protection from UV radiation should be encouraged, especially in patients who have lesions that occur in areas of high actinic damage.¹

Conclusion

We report of a case of linear porokeratosis with associated multiple SCCs that developed within the lesion. Definitive diagnosis of linear porokeratosis is important due to the higher rate of malignant transformation than the rate seen in other porokeratoses. In larger lesions, appropriate sampling and orientation of the pathology specimen is essential for identifying cornoid lamellae, thus allowing for appropriate follow-up and management. Several treatment options are available, though evidence for the effectiveness of any particular therapy is lacking. Research has shed light on possible genetic and molecular abnormalities in linear porokeratosis, but the exact pathogenesis of the disorder remains unclear.

Lesions of porokeratosis are thought to arise from disordered keratinization, though the exact pathogenesis remains uncertain. At least 5 clinical subtypes of porokeratosis have been identified: porokeratosis of Mibelli, disseminated superficial porokeratosis and disseminated superficial actinic porokeratosis (DSAP), linear porokeratosis, punctuate porokeratosis, and porokeratosis palmaris et plantaris disseminata (PPPD).^1,2 Linear porokeratosis is a rare subtype with a clinical differential diagnosis that includes lichen striatus, linear lichen planus, linear verrucous epidermal nevus, segmental Darier disease, and incontinentia pigmenti.³ Definitive diagnosis of linear porokeratosis is made by histopathologic examination demonstrating a cornoid lamella, defined as a column of parakeratotic cells that lies at 45°to the surface of the epidermis and contains pyknotic basophilic nuclei.⁴ Patients with linear porokeratosis typically develop lesions along the lines of Blaschko in infancy or childhood.^5,6 Among the different subtypes of porokeratosis, linear porokeratosis demonstrates the highest rate of malignant transformation, therefore requiring close clinical observation.⁷

Case Report

An 83-year-old woman presented to the outpatient clinic with a large linear plaque on the right leg that had been present since birth. Ten years prior to presentation, a portion of the lesion started to bleed; biopsy of the area was performed by an outside provider demonstrating squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), which was treated with wide local excision. One year prior to presentation, a separate portion of the plaque was biopsied by an outside provider and another diagnosis of SCC was made.

On examination performed during the initial presentation to our clinic, there was a well-demarcated tan to violaceous linear plaque present at the lower buttock and extending along the posterior leg to the skin overlying the Achilles tendon and dorsal aspect of the right foot. Within the plaque, there were areas of atrophy and areas of inflammation, induration, and hyperkeratosis (Figures 1 and 2). Two punch biopsies were performed: one from the edge of the plaque and one from a hyperkeratotic region within the plaque. Histology from the edge of the plaque demonstrated a cornoid lamella, consistent with a porokeratosis (Figure 3), whereas the histology from the hyperkeratotic region demonstrated a lichenoid infiltrate (Figure 4).

Several treatment options directed at the entire lesion were offered to the patient, but she declined these therapies and opted to address only those areas with clinical features of SCC, such as hyperkeratosis, bleeding, and rapid growth. Although biopsies performed by an outside provider were consistent with SCC, it had not been detected on biopsy performed during her initial visit to our clinic.

The patient was educated on the risk associated with her condition and instructed to follow up every 6 months to monitor for the development of SCC.

Comment

Porokeratosis is a disorder of keratinization with at least 5 clinical subtypes that share histologic similarities: porokeratosis of Mibelli, disseminated superficial porokeratosis and DSAP, linear porokeratosis, punctate porokeratosis, and PPPD.^1,2 Other less common variants of porokeratosis include porokeratosis ptychotropica (a verrucous variant confined to the perianal area) and congenital unilateral linear porokeratosis.^8,9

Linear porokeratosis appears in infancy or childhood with plaques that follow the lines of Blaschko.^5,6 Most commonly, it presents unilaterally with annular plaques and linear hyperkeratotic papules that preferentially affect the extremities, though it also may present in a more generalized form or appear in a zosteriform pattern.^10,11 Linear porokeratosis affects fewer than 20,000 individuals in the United States and accounts for fewer than 13% of all porokeratosis cases.^12,13

Despite its relatively low prevalence, early identification of linear porokeratosis is important due to its high oncogenic potential, with malignant transformation to basal cell carcinoma or, more commonly, SCC reported in 19% of reported cases.^1,5,7,14 The malignant transformation rate of linear porokeratosis is reported to be higher than rates seen in other porokeratosis subtypes (9.5%, 7.6%, and 3.4% for PPPD, porokeratosis of Mibelli, and DSAP, respectively).⁷ The risk of malignant transformation from porokeratosis increases with exposure to ionizing radiation, duration of the lesion, larger or coalescing lesions, and advanced age.^7,15,16 Histologic studies have provided support for correlation between lesion size and oncogenic potential, with greater numbers of mitotic cells and more abnormal DNA ploidy seen in larger lesions.¹⁷

Histopathology
All subtypes of porokeratosis share certain histopathologic features that aid in the diagnosis of the disorder.¹⁸ Identification of the clinically observed hyperkeratotic ridged border or cornoid lamella is the primary means of definitively diagnosing porokeratosis; however, cornoid lamellae may be observed in other conditions, including verruca vulgaris and actinic keratosis.^4,14

The cornoid lamella appears as a skewed column of densely packed parakeratotic cells with pyknotic basophilic nuclei extending through the stratum corneum from an epidermal invagination.⁴ Directly beneath the cornoid lamella, the granular layer is markedly diminished or absent, and cells of the stratum spinosum may demonstrate vacuolar changes or dyskeratosis.^4,19 The superficial layer of the cornoid lamella may appear to be more centrifugally located and the cornoid lamella may be seen in several locations throughout the lesion.^2,20 The degree of epidermal invagination, which is present under the cornoid lamella, varies by porokeratosis subtype; the central portion of the lesion may contain epidermis that ranges from hyperplastic to atrophic.² Shumack et al²¹ noted that histologic changes under the cornoid lamella may include a lichenoid tissue reaction, papillary dermal lymphocytic infiltrate, vacuolar changes, dyskeratosis, and liquefaction degeneration of the basal layer. Because many of these histologic features also can be identified in lichen planus, a biopsy of the edge of lesions of porokeratosis is essential for making the correct diagnosis.

Heritability
Although linear porokeratosis has no identified pattern of inheritance and appears sporadic in onset, reports have described concomitant occurrence of linear porokeratosis and DSAP as well as linear porokeratosis arising in children of parents who have a diagnosis of DSAP.^5,18,22,23 Based on these findings, it has been hypothesized that linear porokeratosis may represent a mosaic or segmental form of autosomal-dominant inherited subtypes of porokeratosis, such as DSAP.⁵ According to this hypothesis, loss of heterozygosity in patients with a DSAP mutation during early embryogenesis leads to proliferation of cells that are homozygous or hemizygous for the underlying mutation along lines of Blaschko.²⁴ It has been suggested that the allelic loss implicated in the development of linear porokeratosis is the first step in a multistage process of carcinogenesis, which may help to explain the higher rates of malignant transformation that can be seen in linear porokeratosis.²⁴

Management
Several treatment options exist for porokeratosis, including cryotherapy, topical 5-fluorouracil with or without adjunctive retinoid treatment, topical imiquimod, CO₂ laser, shave and linear excision, curettage, dermabrasion, and oral acitretin for widespread lesions.^1,25-29 One case report detailed successful treatment of adult-onset linear porokeratosis with tacrolimus ointment 0.1%.³⁰ Treatments for porokeratosis demonstrate variable degrees of success, with the aim of eradicating the clonal population of mutant keratinocytes.² Additionally, protection from UV radiation should be encouraged, especially in patients who have lesions that occur in areas of high actinic damage.¹

Conclusion

We report of a case of linear porokeratosis with associated multiple SCCs that developed within the lesion. Definitive diagnosis of linear porokeratosis is important due to the higher rate of malignant transformation than the rate seen in other porokeratoses. In larger lesions, appropriate sampling and orientation of the pathology specimen is essential for identifying cornoid lamellae, thus allowing for appropriate follow-up and management. Several treatment options are available, though evidence for the effectiveness of any particular therapy is lacking. Research has shed light on possible genetic and molecular abnormalities in linear porokeratosis, but the exact pathogenesis of the disorder remains unclear.

SAN DIEGO – An advanced alternative payment model for rheumatoid arthritis will soon be submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for evaluation, in order to provide rheumatologists with another payment pathway under Medicare’s new Quality Payment Program.

The draft version of the rheumatoid arthritis advanced alternative payment model (APM), prepared by the American College of Rheumatology and unveiled at its annual meeting, aims to give rheumatologists a more focused opportunity to participate in value-based care and potentially earn greater incentive payments. The model is geared not only to private practice rheumatologists, but also to those in academia.

The Quality Payment Program, including its advanced APM track, was established by the Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA).

Nick Piegari/Frontline Medical News

Other societies are working on or have submitted APMs for approval, Timothy Laing, MD, a member of the RA APM working group and also the ACR representative to the American Medical Association’s Relative Value Scale Update Committee and CPT Advisory Committee, said at the ACR meeting.

After presenting a draft of the RA APM at an AMA workshop in October, Dr. Laing came away encouraged by the attendees’ response to the usefulness and flexibility of the model to pay for services that rheumatologists are currently frustrated by in a fee-for-services system. “It’s a big if, but I think if we can make the money work, this will be a shift and it will have a lot of impact on how we practice, and I think it will be generalizable to more than one condition.”

The cochair of the RA APM working group, Kwas Huston, MD, presented the draft at the meeting. He noted that advanced APMs could be developed just for specific diseases, for all inflammatory arthritis, all types of vasculitis, or for all rheumatic diseases. RA was chosen first because the ACR is new to the development of APMs and “needed to start somewhere.”

“This model allows us to improve our ability to care for patients and is more sustainable over time for rheumatologists from a revenue standpoint,” Dr. Huston, a rheumatologist with Kansas City (Mo.) Physician Partners, said in an interview.

The RA APM helps to reduce barriers to good care by providing adequate reimbursement for cognitive services through monthly payments rather than relying on payment for separate office visits, Dr. Huston said. The model allows for more time spent in shared decision making, educational activities, and improving treatment adherence. It also builds in payment for non–face-to-face communication between rheumatologists, primary care physicians, and other specialists; interaction with patients via phone calls, email, and telemedicine; and using nurses or other staff to help with chronic disease management. It’s meant to be flexible for use in diverse settings by allowing comanagement of patients in rural areas and places where there is a shortage of rheumatologists or travel is difficult.

Why join an advanced APM?

Rheumatologists may want to join an advanced APM because of the potentially unsustainable, “zero-sum” nature of MACRA’s Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), in which the losers pay for the winners, said Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee and a member of the RA APM working group. In MIPS, there are expected over time to be fewer and fewer “losers” in the program, either because participants perform better or the losers drop out. In addition, advanced APM participants will receive a 5% bonus in 2019-2024 and Medicare payment updates will be higher for advanced APMs in 2026 and beyond than for MIPS (0.75% vs. 0.25%).

Beyond the financial practicalities of MACRA, it’s beneficial for rheumatologists to have their own advanced APM because it’s better than being stuck in one that’s “written by the government and doesn’t cater to other specialties; it’s specific to rheumatology, our patients, our work flow, and what we think is valuable,” said Dr. Worthing, a practicing rheumatologist in the Washington area.

The RA APM’s treatment pathway

Undergirding the whole model is a treatment pathway that takes a standardized approach to RA care, based on ACR 2015 guidelines, and will be updated regularly by the ACR, Dr. Huston said. Following the guidelines gives an opportunity to lower spending but increase the percentage that’s going to rheumatologists by reducing the variability in initiation of expensive medications. “Currently, we get about 2.5 cents on the dollar for every dollar that’s spent on rheumatoid arthritis care, and we want to increase the part that’s going to the rheumatologist to provide more services but decrease total spending,” he said.

The pathway requires the use of methotrexate and/or another disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) before targeted therapy. However, the model also allows for treating unique patients by requiring only 75% adherence to the guidelines. Deviation from the guidelines is allowed if a patient has a contraindication, intolerance, or inadequate response to a DMARD, or if there are barriers outside of the rheumatologist’s control, such as insurance coverage. The ACR guidelines also specify the frequency and type of monitoring that’s needed for treatment.

Because the ACR guidelines will be followed, the model asks that payers make patients eligible for lower out-of-pocket costs for medications. Following the guidelines should also reduce the need for prior authorizations. Providers in the advanced APM would attest to 75% adherence to the pathway, which would be subject to audit. “We want to reduce the reporting burden. In MIPS, it’s very complicated. It’s hard to know how to report all of this. In the APM pathway, we’re trying to simplify reporting. You only have to report two things; one of them is following the treatment pathway 75% of the time” and the other is an outcome measure, he said.

The payments made under this RA treatment pathway are divided into four areas: diagnosis and treatment planning, support for primary care physicians in diagnosing joint symptoms, the initial treatment of RA patients, and continued care for RA.
 

Diagnosis and treatment planning

This step offers a one-time payment to support all the costs of evaluation, testing, diagnosis, and treatment planning for a patient who has symptoms that potentially indicate RA, has not been previously treated or diagnosed with RA, or has been treated unsuccessfully for RA by other physicians. It is not dependent on the number of visits.

This phase also covers basic lab testing and imaging, which if not done by the rheumatology practice, would then have a standardized amount deducted from the payment and be paid separately. Lab tests and imaging performed for other conditions would be paid separately as well.

The payment covers communication with other physicians, spending more time with patients in a shared decision-making process regarding treatment options, and developing a RA treatment plan.

“If you don’t end up diagnosing RA, you still get the payment. But there will be two different payments; one is a little lower if they don’t have RA. If they do have RA, then you spend more time with them developing this treatment plan, so that would be a higher payment,” Dr. Huston said.
 

Support for primary care physicians in diagnosing joint symptoms

This payment goes to a rheumatologist or a nurse practitioner or physician assistant who is working under the supervision of a rheumatologist for a patient who is under the care of a primary care physician who has an agreement to work collaboratively with the rheumatology practice. The payment, which is limited to one bill for one patient in a 1-year period, is for communication between the rheumatologist and the primary care physician about patients with symptoms that might indicate RA to determine the need for referral.

“This communication could be a phone call, an email, face-to-face, or some other form of communication ... to discuss how fast the patient may need to be seen or if there are other tests that need to be done before expediting referrals for patients who are higher risk,” Dr. Huston explained.

The payment would still be made if the patient does not require referral to a rheumatologist.
 

Initial treatment of RA patients

Payment for initial treatment can be made to a rheumatologist, a nurse practitioner or physician assistant under the supervision of a rheumatologist, or a team comprising the rheumatologist and a primary care physician who have a formal arrangement to support the early treatment of RA.

The latter scenario is intended for rural areas and other areas where there is a shortage of rheumatologists. The formal arrangement would specify how payments are shared and who is responsible for each of the accountability requirements and for treatment pathway, “but there is a lot of flexibility, and this can vary quite a bit, so what happens in rural Alaska where the primary care doctors might be more involved is not going to be the same as in a big city where the primary care doctors may not want to be involved at all. So there is no requirement for primary care doctors to be involved, but it just provides the resources in areas where that might make sense,” Dr. Huston noted.

The initial treatment payment would be made monthly for 6 months, replacing evaluation and management billing for office visits related to RA. It pays for typical lab tests and imaging and allows flexibility for non–face-to-face communications, and enhanced services to patients who need them. This payment is also stratified to adjust for sicker patients who have more comorbidities, he said.
 

Continued care for RA

This component of the payment structure also can be made to a rheumatologist, a nurse practitioner or physician assistant under the supervision of a rheumatologist, or the rheumatologist–primary care physician team. Continued care payments are made monthly and, just as with initial treatment payments, they are meant to replace E&M billing for office visits and pay for the same kinds of resources used in initial treatment, including stratified payments to adjust for patient characteristics.

Patients who come to a rheumatologist with established RA would enter this treatment pathway under this kind of payment.
 

RA APM’s accountability requirements

Participants in this model would be required to see a patient face-to-face at least every 6 months and to document their disease activity using a validated scale approved by the ACR for use in the RA APM, such as the RAPID-3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data–3), the CDAI (Clinical Disease Activity Index), the SDAI (Simple Disease Activity Index), or the DAS28 (28-joint Disease Activity Score). Payment would also require keeping a written treatment plan that’s consistent with the ACR’s approved treatment pathway.

Changes in medication require communication with the patient within 2 weeks to help improve treatment adherence. Quality measures will still need to be recorded, such as a functional assessment, tuberculosis screening prior to starting biologics, and having a plan for steroid use, but they are not required to be reported. “You attest to that,” he said.

However, participants will need to report that they are following the treatment pathway for patients and an outcome measure for continued care of RA. These are necessary, Dr. Huston said, because “we are asking that we increase the money that’s going to the rheumatologist for managing patients with RA, so we have to show that we’re accountable and doing good with that money and that we’re taking care of our patients. ... and if we have an outcome measure, then we don’t have to report all those process measures that we do in MIPS.”

The outcome measure would be reporting:

• At least (some %) of patients with low disease activity remained in low disease activity.

• At least (some %) of patients with moderate disease activity stayed in the same or a lower disease activity category.

• At least (some %) of patients with a high disease activity had a lower disease activity category.

It’s unknown yet what the threshold percentage for each disease activity level would be, but it will be obtained from the ACR’s Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) Registry and will be refined over time from there. The outcome measure is not validated yet – none exists for RA for use in clinical practice – because it’s not yet known how to risk stratify patients in these disease activity levels for their comorbidities and socioeconomic factors. “Those are all things we need to learn over time,” Dr. Huston said, “but this is our good-faith effort at developing an outcome measure which we think will become more robust as we gather more and more data.”

Advantages of the RA APM

The RA APM’s advantages, according to Dr. Huston, stem from its payment for high-value services; the avoidance of the penalties and reporting burdens imposed by MIPS; a reduction in documentation requirements, allowing clinicians to take notes on history of present illness and review of systems however they want; a reduction in prior authorizations; and more control over performance measures.

Another big advantage of the RA APM is that participants “are not responsible for the price of drugs, whereas in MIPS you are responsible. When [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] calculates your cost category [in MIPS], that includes Part B drugs, and when the MIPS adjustment factor is applied to your revenue, that includes revenue from Part B drugs,” Dr. Huston said.

In addition, he noted that it will be possible for a rheumatologist to be a participant in just one or two APMs and still have the benefit of being out of MIPS.
 

Next steps

The next steps for the development of the RA APM include refining the treatment pathway, analyzing RISE data outcome thresholds, and modeling the financial impact on practices by running data from three to five practices across the country through the model to determine what the payment levels should be. Once those steps are completed, the RA APM can be submitted to the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee for approval, which will then send it to the CMS to run it through its Innovation Center to test the model in several practices to gather more data and refine the payment rates until it is ready to be expanded and implemented.

Dr. Huston, Dr. Worthing, and Dr. Laing had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – An advanced alternative payment model for rheumatoid arthritis will soon be submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for evaluation, in order to provide rheumatologists with another payment pathway under Medicare’s new Quality Payment Program.

The draft version of the rheumatoid arthritis advanced alternative payment model (APM), prepared by the American College of Rheumatology and unveiled at its annual meeting, aims to give rheumatologists a more focused opportunity to participate in value-based care and potentially earn greater incentive payments. The model is geared not only to private practice rheumatologists, but also to those in academia.

The Quality Payment Program, including its advanced APM track, was established by the Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA).

Nick Piegari/Frontline Medical News

Other societies are working on or have submitted APMs for approval, Timothy Laing, MD, a member of the RA APM working group and also the ACR representative to the American Medical Association’s Relative Value Scale Update Committee and CPT Advisory Committee, said at the ACR meeting.

After presenting a draft of the RA APM at an AMA workshop in October, Dr. Laing came away encouraged by the attendees’ response to the usefulness and flexibility of the model to pay for services that rheumatologists are currently frustrated by in a fee-for-services system. “It’s a big if, but I think if we can make the money work, this will be a shift and it will have a lot of impact on how we practice, and I think it will be generalizable to more than one condition.”

The cochair of the RA APM working group, Kwas Huston, MD, presented the draft at the meeting. He noted that advanced APMs could be developed just for specific diseases, for all inflammatory arthritis, all types of vasculitis, or for all rheumatic diseases. RA was chosen first because the ACR is new to the development of APMs and “needed to start somewhere.”

“This model allows us to improve our ability to care for patients and is more sustainable over time for rheumatologists from a revenue standpoint,” Dr. Huston, a rheumatologist with Kansas City (Mo.) Physician Partners, said in an interview.

The RA APM helps to reduce barriers to good care by providing adequate reimbursement for cognitive services through monthly payments rather than relying on payment for separate office visits, Dr. Huston said. The model allows for more time spent in shared decision making, educational activities, and improving treatment adherence. It also builds in payment for non–face-to-face communication between rheumatologists, primary care physicians, and other specialists; interaction with patients via phone calls, email, and telemedicine; and using nurses or other staff to help with chronic disease management. It’s meant to be flexible for use in diverse settings by allowing comanagement of patients in rural areas and places where there is a shortage of rheumatologists or travel is difficult.

Why join an advanced APM?

Rheumatologists may want to join an advanced APM because of the potentially unsustainable, “zero-sum” nature of MACRA’s Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), in which the losers pay for the winners, said Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee and a member of the RA APM working group. In MIPS, there are expected over time to be fewer and fewer “losers” in the program, either because participants perform better or the losers drop out. In addition, advanced APM participants will receive a 5% bonus in 2019-2024 and Medicare payment updates will be higher for advanced APMs in 2026 and beyond than for MIPS (0.75% vs. 0.25%).

Beyond the financial practicalities of MACRA, it’s beneficial for rheumatologists to have their own advanced APM because it’s better than being stuck in one that’s “written by the government and doesn’t cater to other specialties; it’s specific to rheumatology, our patients, our work flow, and what we think is valuable,” said Dr. Worthing, a practicing rheumatologist in the Washington area.

The RA APM’s treatment pathway

Undergirding the whole model is a treatment pathway that takes a standardized approach to RA care, based on ACR 2015 guidelines, and will be updated regularly by the ACR, Dr. Huston said. Following the guidelines gives an opportunity to lower spending but increase the percentage that’s going to rheumatologists by reducing the variability in initiation of expensive medications. “Currently, we get about 2.5 cents on the dollar for every dollar that’s spent on rheumatoid arthritis care, and we want to increase the part that’s going to the rheumatologist to provide more services but decrease total spending,” he said.

The pathway requires the use of methotrexate and/or another disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) before targeted therapy. However, the model also allows for treating unique patients by requiring only 75% adherence to the guidelines. Deviation from the guidelines is allowed if a patient has a contraindication, intolerance, or inadequate response to a DMARD, or if there are barriers outside of the rheumatologist’s control, such as insurance coverage. The ACR guidelines also specify the frequency and type of monitoring that’s needed for treatment.

Because the ACR guidelines will be followed, the model asks that payers make patients eligible for lower out-of-pocket costs for medications. Following the guidelines should also reduce the need for prior authorizations. Providers in the advanced APM would attest to 75% adherence to the pathway, which would be subject to audit. “We want to reduce the reporting burden. In MIPS, it’s very complicated. It’s hard to know how to report all of this. In the APM pathway, we’re trying to simplify reporting. You only have to report two things; one of them is following the treatment pathway 75% of the time” and the other is an outcome measure, he said.

The payments made under this RA treatment pathway are divided into four areas: diagnosis and treatment planning, support for primary care physicians in diagnosing joint symptoms, the initial treatment of RA patients, and continued care for RA.
 

Diagnosis and treatment planning

This step offers a one-time payment to support all the costs of evaluation, testing, diagnosis, and treatment planning for a patient who has symptoms that potentially indicate RA, has not been previously treated or diagnosed with RA, or has been treated unsuccessfully for RA by other physicians. It is not dependent on the number of visits.

This phase also covers basic lab testing and imaging, which if not done by the rheumatology practice, would then have a standardized amount deducted from the payment and be paid separately. Lab tests and imaging performed for other conditions would be paid separately as well.

The payment covers communication with other physicians, spending more time with patients in a shared decision-making process regarding treatment options, and developing a RA treatment plan.

“If you don’t end up diagnosing RA, you still get the payment. But there will be two different payments; one is a little lower if they don’t have RA. If they do have RA, then you spend more time with them developing this treatment plan, so that would be a higher payment,” Dr. Huston said.
 

Support for primary care physicians in diagnosing joint symptoms

This payment goes to a rheumatologist or a nurse practitioner or physician assistant who is working under the supervision of a rheumatologist for a patient who is under the care of a primary care physician who has an agreement to work collaboratively with the rheumatology practice. The payment, which is limited to one bill for one patient in a 1-year period, is for communication between the rheumatologist and the primary care physician about patients with symptoms that might indicate RA to determine the need for referral.

“This communication could be a phone call, an email, face-to-face, or some other form of communication ... to discuss how fast the patient may need to be seen or if there are other tests that need to be done before expediting referrals for patients who are higher risk,” Dr. Huston explained.

The payment would still be made if the patient does not require referral to a rheumatologist.
 

Initial treatment of RA patients

Payment for initial treatment can be made to a rheumatologist, a nurse practitioner or physician assistant under the supervision of a rheumatologist, or a team comprising the rheumatologist and a primary care physician who have a formal arrangement to support the early treatment of RA.

The latter scenario is intended for rural areas and other areas where there is a shortage of rheumatologists. The formal arrangement would specify how payments are shared and who is responsible for each of the accountability requirements and for treatment pathway, “but there is a lot of flexibility, and this can vary quite a bit, so what happens in rural Alaska where the primary care doctors might be more involved is not going to be the same as in a big city where the primary care doctors may not want to be involved at all. So there is no requirement for primary care doctors to be involved, but it just provides the resources in areas where that might make sense,” Dr. Huston noted.

The initial treatment payment would be made monthly for 6 months, replacing evaluation and management billing for office visits related to RA. It pays for typical lab tests and imaging and allows flexibility for non–face-to-face communications, and enhanced services to patients who need them. This payment is also stratified to adjust for sicker patients who have more comorbidities, he said.
 

Continued care for RA

This component of the payment structure also can be made to a rheumatologist, a nurse practitioner or physician assistant under the supervision of a rheumatologist, or the rheumatologist–primary care physician team. Continued care payments are made monthly and, just as with initial treatment payments, they are meant to replace E&M billing for office visits and pay for the same kinds of resources used in initial treatment, including stratified payments to adjust for patient characteristics.

Patients who come to a rheumatologist with established RA would enter this treatment pathway under this kind of payment.
 

RA APM’s accountability requirements

Participants in this model would be required to see a patient face-to-face at least every 6 months and to document their disease activity using a validated scale approved by the ACR for use in the RA APM, such as the RAPID-3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data–3), the CDAI (Clinical Disease Activity Index), the SDAI (Simple Disease Activity Index), or the DAS28 (28-joint Disease Activity Score). Payment would also require keeping a written treatment plan that’s consistent with the ACR’s approved treatment pathway.

Changes in medication require communication with the patient within 2 weeks to help improve treatment adherence. Quality measures will still need to be recorded, such as a functional assessment, tuberculosis screening prior to starting biologics, and having a plan for steroid use, but they are not required to be reported. “You attest to that,” he said.

However, participants will need to report that they are following the treatment pathway for patients and an outcome measure for continued care of RA. These are necessary, Dr. Huston said, because “we are asking that we increase the money that’s going to the rheumatologist for managing patients with RA, so we have to show that we’re accountable and doing good with that money and that we’re taking care of our patients. ... and if we have an outcome measure, then we don’t have to report all those process measures that we do in MIPS.”

The outcome measure would be reporting:

• At least (some %) of patients with low disease activity remained in low disease activity.

• At least (some %) of patients with moderate disease activity stayed in the same or a lower disease activity category.

• At least (some %) of patients with a high disease activity had a lower disease activity category.

It’s unknown yet what the threshold percentage for each disease activity level would be, but it will be obtained from the ACR’s Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) Registry and will be refined over time from there. The outcome measure is not validated yet – none exists for RA for use in clinical practice – because it’s not yet known how to risk stratify patients in these disease activity levels for their comorbidities and socioeconomic factors. “Those are all things we need to learn over time,” Dr. Huston said, “but this is our good-faith effort at developing an outcome measure which we think will become more robust as we gather more and more data.”

Advantages of the RA APM

The RA APM’s advantages, according to Dr. Huston, stem from its payment for high-value services; the avoidance of the penalties and reporting burdens imposed by MIPS; a reduction in documentation requirements, allowing clinicians to take notes on history of present illness and review of systems however they want; a reduction in prior authorizations; and more control over performance measures.

Another big advantage of the RA APM is that participants “are not responsible for the price of drugs, whereas in MIPS you are responsible. When [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] calculates your cost category [in MIPS], that includes Part B drugs, and when the MIPS adjustment factor is applied to your revenue, that includes revenue from Part B drugs,” Dr. Huston said.

In addition, he noted that it will be possible for a rheumatologist to be a participant in just one or two APMs and still have the benefit of being out of MIPS.
 

Next steps

The next steps for the development of the RA APM include refining the treatment pathway, analyzing RISE data outcome thresholds, and modeling the financial impact on practices by running data from three to five practices across the country through the model to determine what the payment levels should be. Once those steps are completed, the RA APM can be submitted to the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee for approval, which will then send it to the CMS to run it through its Innovation Center to test the model in several practices to gather more data and refine the payment rates until it is ready to be expanded and implemented.

Dr. Huston, Dr. Worthing, and Dr. Laing had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – An advanced alternative payment model for rheumatoid arthritis will soon be submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for evaluation, in order to provide rheumatologists with another payment pathway under Medicare’s new Quality Payment Program.

The draft version of the rheumatoid arthritis advanced alternative payment model (APM), prepared by the American College of Rheumatology and unveiled at its annual meeting, aims to give rheumatologists a more focused opportunity to participate in value-based care and potentially earn greater incentive payments. The model is geared not only to private practice rheumatologists, but also to those in academia.

The Quality Payment Program, including its advanced APM track, was established by the Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA).

Nick Piegari/Frontline Medical News

Other societies are working on or have submitted APMs for approval, Timothy Laing, MD, a member of the RA APM working group and also the ACR representative to the American Medical Association’s Relative Value Scale Update Committee and CPT Advisory Committee, said at the ACR meeting.

After presenting a draft of the RA APM at an AMA workshop in October, Dr. Laing came away encouraged by the attendees’ response to the usefulness and flexibility of the model to pay for services that rheumatologists are currently frustrated by in a fee-for-services system. “It’s a big if, but I think if we can make the money work, this will be a shift and it will have a lot of impact on how we practice, and I think it will be generalizable to more than one condition.”

The cochair of the RA APM working group, Kwas Huston, MD, presented the draft at the meeting. He noted that advanced APMs could be developed just for specific diseases, for all inflammatory arthritis, all types of vasculitis, or for all rheumatic diseases. RA was chosen first because the ACR is new to the development of APMs and “needed to start somewhere.”

“This model allows us to improve our ability to care for patients and is more sustainable over time for rheumatologists from a revenue standpoint,” Dr. Huston, a rheumatologist with Kansas City (Mo.) Physician Partners, said in an interview.

The RA APM helps to reduce barriers to good care by providing adequate reimbursement for cognitive services through monthly payments rather than relying on payment for separate office visits, Dr. Huston said. The model allows for more time spent in shared decision making, educational activities, and improving treatment adherence. It also builds in payment for non–face-to-face communication between rheumatologists, primary care physicians, and other specialists; interaction with patients via phone calls, email, and telemedicine; and using nurses or other staff to help with chronic disease management. It’s meant to be flexible for use in diverse settings by allowing comanagement of patients in rural areas and places where there is a shortage of rheumatologists or travel is difficult.

Why join an advanced APM?

Rheumatologists may want to join an advanced APM because of the potentially unsustainable, “zero-sum” nature of MACRA’s Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), in which the losers pay for the winners, said Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee and a member of the RA APM working group. In MIPS, there are expected over time to be fewer and fewer “losers” in the program, either because participants perform better or the losers drop out. In addition, advanced APM participants will receive a 5% bonus in 2019-2024 and Medicare payment updates will be higher for advanced APMs in 2026 and beyond than for MIPS (0.75% vs. 0.25%).

Beyond the financial practicalities of MACRA, it’s beneficial for rheumatologists to have their own advanced APM because it’s better than being stuck in one that’s “written by the government and doesn’t cater to other specialties; it’s specific to rheumatology, our patients, our work flow, and what we think is valuable,” said Dr. Worthing, a practicing rheumatologist in the Washington area.

The RA APM’s treatment pathway

Undergirding the whole model is a treatment pathway that takes a standardized approach to RA care, based on ACR 2015 guidelines, and will be updated regularly by the ACR, Dr. Huston said. Following the guidelines gives an opportunity to lower spending but increase the percentage that’s going to rheumatologists by reducing the variability in initiation of expensive medications. “Currently, we get about 2.5 cents on the dollar for every dollar that’s spent on rheumatoid arthritis care, and we want to increase the part that’s going to the rheumatologist to provide more services but decrease total spending,” he said.

The pathway requires the use of methotrexate and/or another disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) before targeted therapy. However, the model also allows for treating unique patients by requiring only 75% adherence to the guidelines. Deviation from the guidelines is allowed if a patient has a contraindication, intolerance, or inadequate response to a DMARD, or if there are barriers outside of the rheumatologist’s control, such as insurance coverage. The ACR guidelines also specify the frequency and type of monitoring that’s needed for treatment.

Because the ACR guidelines will be followed, the model asks that payers make patients eligible for lower out-of-pocket costs for medications. Following the guidelines should also reduce the need for prior authorizations. Providers in the advanced APM would attest to 75% adherence to the pathway, which would be subject to audit. “We want to reduce the reporting burden. In MIPS, it’s very complicated. It’s hard to know how to report all of this. In the APM pathway, we’re trying to simplify reporting. You only have to report two things; one of them is following the treatment pathway 75% of the time” and the other is an outcome measure, he said.

The payments made under this RA treatment pathway are divided into four areas: diagnosis and treatment planning, support for primary care physicians in diagnosing joint symptoms, the initial treatment of RA patients, and continued care for RA.
 

Diagnosis and treatment planning

This step offers a one-time payment to support all the costs of evaluation, testing, diagnosis, and treatment planning for a patient who has symptoms that potentially indicate RA, has not been previously treated or diagnosed with RA, or has been treated unsuccessfully for RA by other physicians. It is not dependent on the number of visits.

This phase also covers basic lab testing and imaging, which if not done by the rheumatology practice, would then have a standardized amount deducted from the payment and be paid separately. Lab tests and imaging performed for other conditions would be paid separately as well.

The payment covers communication with other physicians, spending more time with patients in a shared decision-making process regarding treatment options, and developing a RA treatment plan.

“If you don’t end up diagnosing RA, you still get the payment. But there will be two different payments; one is a little lower if they don’t have RA. If they do have RA, then you spend more time with them developing this treatment plan, so that would be a higher payment,” Dr. Huston said.
 

Support for primary care physicians in diagnosing joint symptoms

This payment goes to a rheumatologist or a nurse practitioner or physician assistant who is working under the supervision of a rheumatologist for a patient who is under the care of a primary care physician who has an agreement to work collaboratively with the rheumatology practice. The payment, which is limited to one bill for one patient in a 1-year period, is for communication between the rheumatologist and the primary care physician about patients with symptoms that might indicate RA to determine the need for referral.

“This communication could be a phone call, an email, face-to-face, or some other form of communication ... to discuss how fast the patient may need to be seen or if there are other tests that need to be done before expediting referrals for patients who are higher risk,” Dr. Huston explained.

The payment would still be made if the patient does not require referral to a rheumatologist.
 

Initial treatment of RA patients

Payment for initial treatment can be made to a rheumatologist, a nurse practitioner or physician assistant under the supervision of a rheumatologist, or a team comprising the rheumatologist and a primary care physician who have a formal arrangement to support the early treatment of RA.

The latter scenario is intended for rural areas and other areas where there is a shortage of rheumatologists. The formal arrangement would specify how payments are shared and who is responsible for each of the accountability requirements and for treatment pathway, “but there is a lot of flexibility, and this can vary quite a bit, so what happens in rural Alaska where the primary care doctors might be more involved is not going to be the same as in a big city where the primary care doctors may not want to be involved at all. So there is no requirement for primary care doctors to be involved, but it just provides the resources in areas where that might make sense,” Dr. Huston noted.

The initial treatment payment would be made monthly for 6 months, replacing evaluation and management billing for office visits related to RA. It pays for typical lab tests and imaging and allows flexibility for non–face-to-face communications, and enhanced services to patients who need them. This payment is also stratified to adjust for sicker patients who have more comorbidities, he said.
 

Continued care for RA

This component of the payment structure also can be made to a rheumatologist, a nurse practitioner or physician assistant under the supervision of a rheumatologist, or the rheumatologist–primary care physician team. Continued care payments are made monthly and, just as with initial treatment payments, they are meant to replace E&M billing for office visits and pay for the same kinds of resources used in initial treatment, including stratified payments to adjust for patient characteristics.

Patients who come to a rheumatologist with established RA would enter this treatment pathway under this kind of payment.
 

RA APM’s accountability requirements

Participants in this model would be required to see a patient face-to-face at least every 6 months and to document their disease activity using a validated scale approved by the ACR for use in the RA APM, such as the RAPID-3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data–3), the CDAI (Clinical Disease Activity Index), the SDAI (Simple Disease Activity Index), or the DAS28 (28-joint Disease Activity Score). Payment would also require keeping a written treatment plan that’s consistent with the ACR’s approved treatment pathway.

Changes in medication require communication with the patient within 2 weeks to help improve treatment adherence. Quality measures will still need to be recorded, such as a functional assessment, tuberculosis screening prior to starting biologics, and having a plan for steroid use, but they are not required to be reported. “You attest to that,” he said.

However, participants will need to report that they are following the treatment pathway for patients and an outcome measure for continued care of RA. These are necessary, Dr. Huston said, because “we are asking that we increase the money that’s going to the rheumatologist for managing patients with RA, so we have to show that we’re accountable and doing good with that money and that we’re taking care of our patients. ... and if we have an outcome measure, then we don’t have to report all those process measures that we do in MIPS.”

The outcome measure would be reporting:

• At least (some %) of patients with low disease activity remained in low disease activity.

• At least (some %) of patients with moderate disease activity stayed in the same or a lower disease activity category.

• At least (some %) of patients with a high disease activity had a lower disease activity category.

It’s unknown yet what the threshold percentage for each disease activity level would be, but it will be obtained from the ACR’s Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) Registry and will be refined over time from there. The outcome measure is not validated yet – none exists for RA for use in clinical practice – because it’s not yet known how to risk stratify patients in these disease activity levels for their comorbidities and socioeconomic factors. “Those are all things we need to learn over time,” Dr. Huston said, “but this is our good-faith effort at developing an outcome measure which we think will become more robust as we gather more and more data.”

Advantages of the RA APM

The RA APM’s advantages, according to Dr. Huston, stem from its payment for high-value services; the avoidance of the penalties and reporting burdens imposed by MIPS; a reduction in documentation requirements, allowing clinicians to take notes on history of present illness and review of systems however they want; a reduction in prior authorizations; and more control over performance measures.

Another big advantage of the RA APM is that participants “are not responsible for the price of drugs, whereas in MIPS you are responsible. When [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] calculates your cost category [in MIPS], that includes Part B drugs, and when the MIPS adjustment factor is applied to your revenue, that includes revenue from Part B drugs,” Dr. Huston said.

In addition, he noted that it will be possible for a rheumatologist to be a participant in just one or two APMs and still have the benefit of being out of MIPS.
 

Next steps

The next steps for the development of the RA APM include refining the treatment pathway, analyzing RISE data outcome thresholds, and modeling the financial impact on practices by running data from three to five practices across the country through the model to determine what the payment levels should be. Once those steps are completed, the RA APM can be submitted to the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee for approval, which will then send it to the CMS to run it through its Innovation Center to test the model in several practices to gather more data and refine the payment rates until it is ready to be expanded and implemented.

Dr. Huston, Dr. Worthing, and Dr. Laing had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide may help decrease the rate of nonrelapse mortality and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in patients who have undergone allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation, according to new findings published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Even though it is a potentially curative option for patients with poor-risk hematologic malignancies, allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation (alloBMT) has not been commonly used in multiple myeloma because of its association with high nonrelapse mortality and high relapse rates. However, the use of post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) in this study led to low rates of both acute and chronic GVHD, which translated to low rates of nonrelapse mortality and maintenance of long-term remissions in a subset of patients with multiple myeloma treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

“The favorable toxicity profile of alloBMT using PTCy in patients with MM offers the potential to further explore the use of post-transplantation strategies to improve disease control,” wrote Nilanjan Ghosh, MD, of the Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C., and his colleagues.

The researchers examined outcomes of 39 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent bone marrow or peripheral blood alloBMT from HLA-matched related/unrelated or haploidentical related donors after either myeloablative or nonmyeloablative conditioning.

Patients who underwent myeloablative conditioning received PTCy 50 mg/kg per day (given intravenously on days 3 and 4 after alloBMT) as GVHD prophylaxis, while those who received nonmyeloablative conditioning received PTCy (same dose and schedule) and additional immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil 15 mg/kg (orally two to three times daily, up to 1,000 mg/dose on days 4-35 after transplantation).

At a median follow-up of 10.3 years following alloBMT, 23% of the cohort remained alive and without any evidence of disease. The median overall survival was 4.4 years. The 5-year survival probability was 49% (95% confidence interval, 32%-67%) and 10-year survival probability was 43% (95% CI, 29%-62%).

Following transplantation, 10 (26%) patients achieved a complete response, 8 (21%) had a very good partial response, 6 (15%) had a partial response, and 15 (38%) had progressive disease, the investigators reported (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017 Nov;23[11]:1903-9).

Among the 36 patients with evidence of donor engraftment, the cumulative incidences of grade 2-4 and grade 3 and 4 acute GVHD were 0.41 (95% CI, 0.25-0.57) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.16), respectively. For chronic GVHD, the cumulative incidence was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.02-0.23), and the median time to development was 109 days after alloBMT.

The median progression-free survival was 12 months (95% CI, 7.6-40), and the estimated cumulative incidence of relapse was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.3-0.62) at 1 year and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.41-0.72) at 2 years.

In univariate analysis, achievement of a complete response following alloBMT correlated with overall survival. Factors such as the intensity of the alloBMT conditioning regimen, stem cell source, age, and disease response before alloBMT did not appear to impact overall survival.

“Given the low incidence of GVHD and [nonrelapse mortality] in our study, it is possible that post-transplantation maintenance therapies can be used to improve diseases control,” Dr. Ghosh and his associates wrote. “Emerging data suggest that many anticancer agents may be more active after alloBMT than before transplantation.”

The study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide may help decrease the rate of nonrelapse mortality and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in patients who have undergone allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation, according to new findings published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Even though it is a potentially curative option for patients with poor-risk hematologic malignancies, allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation (alloBMT) has not been commonly used in multiple myeloma because of its association with high nonrelapse mortality and high relapse rates. However, the use of post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) in this study led to low rates of both acute and chronic GVHD, which translated to low rates of nonrelapse mortality and maintenance of long-term remissions in a subset of patients with multiple myeloma treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

“The favorable toxicity profile of alloBMT using PTCy in patients with MM offers the potential to further explore the use of post-transplantation strategies to improve disease control,” wrote Nilanjan Ghosh, MD, of the Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C., and his colleagues.

The researchers examined outcomes of 39 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent bone marrow or peripheral blood alloBMT from HLA-matched related/unrelated or haploidentical related donors after either myeloablative or nonmyeloablative conditioning.

Patients who underwent myeloablative conditioning received PTCy 50 mg/kg per day (given intravenously on days 3 and 4 after alloBMT) as GVHD prophylaxis, while those who received nonmyeloablative conditioning received PTCy (same dose and schedule) and additional immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil 15 mg/kg (orally two to three times daily, up to 1,000 mg/dose on days 4-35 after transplantation).

At a median follow-up of 10.3 years following alloBMT, 23% of the cohort remained alive and without any evidence of disease. The median overall survival was 4.4 years. The 5-year survival probability was 49% (95% confidence interval, 32%-67%) and 10-year survival probability was 43% (95% CI, 29%-62%).

Following transplantation, 10 (26%) patients achieved a complete response, 8 (21%) had a very good partial response, 6 (15%) had a partial response, and 15 (38%) had progressive disease, the investigators reported (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017 Nov;23[11]:1903-9).

Among the 36 patients with evidence of donor engraftment, the cumulative incidences of grade 2-4 and grade 3 and 4 acute GVHD were 0.41 (95% CI, 0.25-0.57) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.16), respectively. For chronic GVHD, the cumulative incidence was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.02-0.23), and the median time to development was 109 days after alloBMT.

The median progression-free survival was 12 months (95% CI, 7.6-40), and the estimated cumulative incidence of relapse was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.3-0.62) at 1 year and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.41-0.72) at 2 years.

In univariate analysis, achievement of a complete response following alloBMT correlated with overall survival. Factors such as the intensity of the alloBMT conditioning regimen, stem cell source, age, and disease response before alloBMT did not appear to impact overall survival.

“Given the low incidence of GVHD and [nonrelapse mortality] in our study, it is possible that post-transplantation maintenance therapies can be used to improve diseases control,” Dr. Ghosh and his associates wrote. “Emerging data suggest that many anticancer agents may be more active after alloBMT than before transplantation.”

The study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide may help decrease the rate of nonrelapse mortality and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in patients who have undergone allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation, according to new findings published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Even though it is a potentially curative option for patients with poor-risk hematologic malignancies, allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation (alloBMT) has not been commonly used in multiple myeloma because of its association with high nonrelapse mortality and high relapse rates. However, the use of post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) in this study led to low rates of both acute and chronic GVHD, which translated to low rates of nonrelapse mortality and maintenance of long-term remissions in a subset of patients with multiple myeloma treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

“The favorable toxicity profile of alloBMT using PTCy in patients with MM offers the potential to further explore the use of post-transplantation strategies to improve disease control,” wrote Nilanjan Ghosh, MD, of the Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C., and his colleagues.

The researchers examined outcomes of 39 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent bone marrow or peripheral blood alloBMT from HLA-matched related/unrelated or haploidentical related donors after either myeloablative or nonmyeloablative conditioning.

Patients who underwent myeloablative conditioning received PTCy 50 mg/kg per day (given intravenously on days 3 and 4 after alloBMT) as GVHD prophylaxis, while those who received nonmyeloablative conditioning received PTCy (same dose and schedule) and additional immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil 15 mg/kg (orally two to three times daily, up to 1,000 mg/dose on days 4-35 after transplantation).

At a median follow-up of 10.3 years following alloBMT, 23% of the cohort remained alive and without any evidence of disease. The median overall survival was 4.4 years. The 5-year survival probability was 49% (95% confidence interval, 32%-67%) and 10-year survival probability was 43% (95% CI, 29%-62%).

Following transplantation, 10 (26%) patients achieved a complete response, 8 (21%) had a very good partial response, 6 (15%) had a partial response, and 15 (38%) had progressive disease, the investigators reported (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017 Nov;23[11]:1903-9).

Among the 36 patients with evidence of donor engraftment, the cumulative incidences of grade 2-4 and grade 3 and 4 acute GVHD were 0.41 (95% CI, 0.25-0.57) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.16), respectively. For chronic GVHD, the cumulative incidence was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.02-0.23), and the median time to development was 109 days after alloBMT.

The median progression-free survival was 12 months (95% CI, 7.6-40), and the estimated cumulative incidence of relapse was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.3-0.62) at 1 year and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.41-0.72) at 2 years.

In univariate analysis, achievement of a complete response following alloBMT correlated with overall survival. Factors such as the intensity of the alloBMT conditioning regimen, stem cell source, age, and disease response before alloBMT did not appear to impact overall survival.

“Given the low incidence of GVHD and [nonrelapse mortality] in our study, it is possible that post-transplantation maintenance therapies can be used to improve diseases control,” Dr. Ghosh and his associates wrote. “Emerging data suggest that many anticancer agents may be more active after alloBMT than before transplantation.”

The study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

After the turkey, after the frenzy of post-holiday shopping, do something for others by donating to the SVS Foundation on #Giving Tuesday.

This day kicks off the charitable season, when many people focus on holiday and year-end giving. The global day of giving was founded in 2012 and is celebrated on the Tuesday following Thanksgiving, on the heels of the Black Friday and Cyber Monday shopping days.

This year, the expanded mission of the SVS Foundation provides even more reasons to give generously. So, on #GivingTuesday, think of the patients you treat and whose lives you’ve impacted – and donate to the SVS Foundation. 

After the turkey, after the frenzy of post-holiday shopping, do something for others by donating to the SVS Foundation on #Giving Tuesday.

This day kicks off the charitable season, when many people focus on holiday and year-end giving. The global day of giving was founded in 2012 and is celebrated on the Tuesday following Thanksgiving, on the heels of the Black Friday and Cyber Monday shopping days.

This year, the expanded mission of the SVS Foundation provides even more reasons to give generously. So, on #GivingTuesday, think of the patients you treat and whose lives you’ve impacted – and donate to the SVS Foundation. 

After the turkey, after the frenzy of post-holiday shopping, do something for others by donating to the SVS Foundation on #Giving Tuesday.

This day kicks off the charitable season, when many people focus on holiday and year-end giving. The global day of giving was founded in 2012 and is celebrated on the Tuesday following Thanksgiving, on the heels of the Black Friday and Cyber Monday shopping days.

This year, the expanded mission of the SVS Foundation provides even more reasons to give generously. So, on #GivingTuesday, think of the patients you treat and whose lives you’ve impacted – and donate to the SVS Foundation. 

November is American Diabetes Month – and as we know, that disease goes hand in hand (and foot) with vascular disease. SVS has created a handy pdf for your office on how to keep feet healthy despite diabetes, available here, along with a press release on the topic. Please feel free to print the infographic out and share with patients, staff and coworkers.

November is American Diabetes Month – and as we know, that disease goes hand in hand (and foot) with vascular disease. SVS has created a handy pdf for your office on how to keep feet healthy despite diabetes, available here, along with a press release on the topic. Please feel free to print the infographic out and share with patients, staff and coworkers.

November is American Diabetes Month – and as we know, that disease goes hand in hand (and foot) with vascular disease. SVS has created a handy pdf for your office on how to keep feet healthy despite diabetes, available here, along with a press release on the topic. Please feel free to print the infographic out and share with patients, staff and coworkers.

Approximately three-quarters of respondents indicated that they have used oral or injectable medications (eg, methotrexate, acitretin, cyclosporine, apremilast, biologics) to control their psoriasis, according to a public meeting hosted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to hear patient perspectives on psoriasis. Approximately 70 psoriasis patients or patient representatives attended the meeting in person and others attended through a live webcast.

Patients universally spoke about the benefits of their current treatments, especially the biologics, but variable experiences regarding the effectiveness of the therapies were reported, ranging from excellent improvement, to improvement that lasted only a few months, to a near-complete clearance. However, limitations to these therapies also were mentioned, which are areas where dermatologists can provide counseling and alternatives. For example, treatments were reported to be effective in clearing cutaneous psoriasis symptoms such as flaking and scaling, but pruritus, burning, and pain were still problematic and mostly limited to areas where the cutaneous symptoms had been located.

Other treatment downsides that dermatologists should discuss with patients are side effects, including fatigue, nausea, fluctuations in weight, increased facial hair growth, nosebleeds, increased blood pressure, headaches, and palpitations, according to the patients present at the meeting. Patients also expressed concern about immune compromise from the biologics. Others reported concerns that the treatments addressed specific psoriasis symptoms but led to worsening of other symptoms or development of new conditions such as uveitis and psoriatic arthritis. The burden of treatment infusions or required blood work also were discussed. These are areas in which dermatologists may be best suited to provide more patient education or support when prescribing these therapies. The National Psoriasis Foundation’s Patient Navigation Center is a tool for patients to access information and interact with members of the psoriasis patient community.

The psoriasis public meeting in March 2016 was the FDA’s 18th patient-focused drug development meeting. The FDA sought this information to have a greater understanding of the burden of psoriasis on patients and the treatments currently used to treat psoriasis and its symptoms. This information will help guide the FDA as they consider future drug approvals.

Approximately three-quarters of respondents indicated that they have used oral or injectable medications (eg, methotrexate, acitretin, cyclosporine, apremilast, biologics) to control their psoriasis, according to a public meeting hosted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to hear patient perspectives on psoriasis. Approximately 70 psoriasis patients or patient representatives attended the meeting in person and others attended through a live webcast.

Patients universally spoke about the benefits of their current treatments, especially the biologics, but variable experiences regarding the effectiveness of the therapies were reported, ranging from excellent improvement, to improvement that lasted only a few months, to a near-complete clearance. However, limitations to these therapies also were mentioned, which are areas where dermatologists can provide counseling and alternatives. For example, treatments were reported to be effective in clearing cutaneous psoriasis symptoms such as flaking and scaling, but pruritus, burning, and pain were still problematic and mostly limited to areas where the cutaneous symptoms had been located.

Other treatment downsides that dermatologists should discuss with patients are side effects, including fatigue, nausea, fluctuations in weight, increased facial hair growth, nosebleeds, increased blood pressure, headaches, and palpitations, according to the patients present at the meeting. Patients also expressed concern about immune compromise from the biologics. Others reported concerns that the treatments addressed specific psoriasis symptoms but led to worsening of other symptoms or development of new conditions such as uveitis and psoriatic arthritis. The burden of treatment infusions or required blood work also were discussed. These are areas in which dermatologists may be best suited to provide more patient education or support when prescribing these therapies. The National Psoriasis Foundation’s Patient Navigation Center is a tool for patients to access information and interact with members of the psoriasis patient community.

The psoriasis public meeting in March 2016 was the FDA’s 18th patient-focused drug development meeting. The FDA sought this information to have a greater understanding of the burden of psoriasis on patients and the treatments currently used to treat psoriasis and its symptoms. This information will help guide the FDA as they consider future drug approvals.

Approximately three-quarters of respondents indicated that they have used oral or injectable medications (eg, methotrexate, acitretin, cyclosporine, apremilast, biologics) to control their psoriasis, according to a public meeting hosted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to hear patient perspectives on psoriasis. Approximately 70 psoriasis patients or patient representatives attended the meeting in person and others attended through a live webcast.

Patients universally spoke about the benefits of their current treatments, especially the biologics, but variable experiences regarding the effectiveness of the therapies were reported, ranging from excellent improvement, to improvement that lasted only a few months, to a near-complete clearance. However, limitations to these therapies also were mentioned, which are areas where dermatologists can provide counseling and alternatives. For example, treatments were reported to be effective in clearing cutaneous psoriasis symptoms such as flaking and scaling, but pruritus, burning, and pain were still problematic and mostly limited to areas where the cutaneous symptoms had been located.

Other treatment downsides that dermatologists should discuss with patients are side effects, including fatigue, nausea, fluctuations in weight, increased facial hair growth, nosebleeds, increased blood pressure, headaches, and palpitations, according to the patients present at the meeting. Patients also expressed concern about immune compromise from the biologics. Others reported concerns that the treatments addressed specific psoriasis symptoms but led to worsening of other symptoms or development of new conditions such as uveitis and psoriatic arthritis. The burden of treatment infusions or required blood work also were discussed. These are areas in which dermatologists may be best suited to provide more patient education or support when prescribing these therapies. The National Psoriasis Foundation’s Patient Navigation Center is a tool for patients to access information and interact with members of the psoriasis patient community.

The psoriasis public meeting in March 2016 was the FDA’s 18th patient-focused drug development meeting. The FDA sought this information to have a greater understanding of the burden of psoriasis on patients and the treatments currently used to treat psoriasis and its symptoms. This information will help guide the FDA as they consider future drug approvals.

If you haven’t started reporting quality data for the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), there’s still time to avoid a 4% cut to your Medicare payments.

Under the Pick Your Pace approach being offered this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allows clinicians to test the system by reporting on one quality measure for one patient through paper-based claims. Be sure to append a Quality Data Code (QDC) to the claim form for care provided up to Dec. 31, 2017, in order to avoid a penalty in payment year 2019.

Consider this measure:

Measure #181: Elder Maltreatment Screen and Follow-Up Plan

This measure aims to capture the percentage of patients aged 65 years and older who have a documented elder maltreatment screening and a follow-up plan, if appropriate.

What you need to do: Screen your elderly patients for maltreatment using an Elder Maltreatment Screening tool during the visit and if they screen positive, develop and document a follow-up plan at the visit.

Eligible cases include patients who were aged 65 years or older on the date of the encounter and a have patient encounter during the performance period. Applicable codes include (CPT or HCPCS): 90791, 90792, 90832, 90834, 90837, 96116, 96118, 96150, 96151, 96152, 97165, 97166, 97167, 97802, 97803, 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205, 99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, 99304, 99305, 99306, 99307, 99308, 99309, 99310, 99318, 99324, 99325, 99326, 99327, 99328, 99334, 99335, 99336, 99337, 99341, 99342, 99343, 99344, 99345, 99347, 99348, 99349, 99350, G0101, G0270, G0402, G0438, G0439 without telehealth modifiers GQ or GT.

To get credit under MIPS, be sure to include a QDC that shows that you successfully performed the measure or had a good reason for not doing so. For instance, G8733 indicates that an elder maltreatment screen was documented as positive and a follow-up plan was documented, while G8734 indicates that the screen was negative and a follow-up plan is not required. Use exception code G8535 if the screening was not documented because the patient is not eligible. For example, a patient is not eligible if they require urgent medical care during the visit and the screening would delay treatment.

CMS has a full list measures available for claims-based reporting at qpp.cms.gov. The American Medical Association has also created a step-by-step guide for reporting on one quality measure.

Certain clinicians are exempt from reporting and do not face a penalty under MIPS:

• Those who enrolled in Medicare for the first time during a performance period.
• Those who have Medicare Part B allowed charges of $30,000 or less.
• Those who have 100 or fewer Medicare Part B patients.
• Those who are significantly participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).

If you haven’t started reporting quality data for the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), there’s still time to avoid a 4% cut to your Medicare payments.

Under the Pick Your Pace approach being offered this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allows clinicians to test the system by reporting on one quality measure for one patient through paper-based claims. Be sure to append a Quality Data Code (QDC) to the claim form for care provided up to Dec. 31, 2017, in order to avoid a penalty in payment year 2019.

Consider this measure:

Measure #181: Elder Maltreatment Screen and Follow-Up Plan

This measure aims to capture the percentage of patients aged 65 years and older who have a documented elder maltreatment screening and a follow-up plan, if appropriate.

What you need to do: Screen your elderly patients for maltreatment using an Elder Maltreatment Screening tool during the visit and if they screen positive, develop and document a follow-up plan at the visit.

Eligible cases include patients who were aged 65 years or older on the date of the encounter and a have patient encounter during the performance period. Applicable codes include (CPT or HCPCS): 90791, 90792, 90832, 90834, 90837, 96116, 96118, 96150, 96151, 96152, 97165, 97166, 97167, 97802, 97803, 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205, 99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, 99304, 99305, 99306, 99307, 99308, 99309, 99310, 99318, 99324, 99325, 99326, 99327, 99328, 99334, 99335, 99336, 99337, 99341, 99342, 99343, 99344, 99345, 99347, 99348, 99349, 99350, G0101, G0270, G0402, G0438, G0439 without telehealth modifiers GQ or GT.

To get credit under MIPS, be sure to include a QDC that shows that you successfully performed the measure or had a good reason for not doing so. For instance, G8733 indicates that an elder maltreatment screen was documented as positive and a follow-up plan was documented, while G8734 indicates that the screen was negative and a follow-up plan is not required. Use exception code G8535 if the screening was not documented because the patient is not eligible. For example, a patient is not eligible if they require urgent medical care during the visit and the screening would delay treatment.

CMS has a full list measures available for claims-based reporting at qpp.cms.gov. The American Medical Association has also created a step-by-step guide for reporting on one quality measure.

Certain clinicians are exempt from reporting and do not face a penalty under MIPS:

• Those who enrolled in Medicare for the first time during a performance period.
• Those who have Medicare Part B allowed charges of $30,000 or less.
• Those who have 100 or fewer Medicare Part B patients.
• Those who are significantly participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).

If you haven’t started reporting quality data for the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), there’s still time to avoid a 4% cut to your Medicare payments.

Under the Pick Your Pace approach being offered this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allows clinicians to test the system by reporting on one quality measure for one patient through paper-based claims. Be sure to append a Quality Data Code (QDC) to the claim form for care provided up to Dec. 31, 2017, in order to avoid a penalty in payment year 2019.

Consider this measure:

Measure #181: Elder Maltreatment Screen and Follow-Up Plan

This measure aims to capture the percentage of patients aged 65 years and older who have a documented elder maltreatment screening and a follow-up plan, if appropriate.

What you need to do: Screen your elderly patients for maltreatment using an Elder Maltreatment Screening tool during the visit and if they screen positive, develop and document a follow-up plan at the visit.

Eligible cases include patients who were aged 65 years or older on the date of the encounter and a have patient encounter during the performance period. Applicable codes include (CPT or HCPCS): 90791, 90792, 90832, 90834, 90837, 96116, 96118, 96150, 96151, 96152, 97165, 97166, 97167, 97802, 97803, 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205, 99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, 99304, 99305, 99306, 99307, 99308, 99309, 99310, 99318, 99324, 99325, 99326, 99327, 99328, 99334, 99335, 99336, 99337, 99341, 99342, 99343, 99344, 99345, 99347, 99348, 99349, 99350, G0101, G0270, G0402, G0438, G0439 without telehealth modifiers GQ or GT.

To get credit under MIPS, be sure to include a QDC that shows that you successfully performed the measure or had a good reason for not doing so. For instance, G8733 indicates that an elder maltreatment screen was documented as positive and a follow-up plan was documented, while G8734 indicates that the screen was negative and a follow-up plan is not required. Use exception code G8535 if the screening was not documented because the patient is not eligible. For example, a patient is not eligible if they require urgent medical care during the visit and the screening would delay treatment.

CMS has a full list measures available for claims-based reporting at qpp.cms.gov. The American Medical Association has also created a step-by-step guide for reporting on one quality measure.

Certain clinicians are exempt from reporting and do not face a penalty under MIPS:

• Those who enrolled in Medicare for the first time during a performance period.
• Those who have Medicare Part B allowed charges of $30,000 or less.
• Those who have 100 or fewer Medicare Part B patients.
• Those who are significantly participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).