Across patients’ age groups, adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improves progression-free survival in advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma while also reducing toxicities, making it a new standard of care, compared with the CD30-targeting drug brentuximab vedotin.

“[SWOG] S1826, the largest Hodgkin lymphoma study in National Clinical Trials Network history, is a key step toward harmonizing the pediatric and adult treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma,” the authors reported in late-breaking research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Based on the magnitude of the benefit and with nivolumab being better tolerated than brentuximab, we anticipate that these results will be practice changing and nivolumab [and chemotherapy] will become a new standard of care,” lead author Alex Francisco Herrera, MD, an associate professor and chief of the division of lymphoma in the department of hematology and hematopoietic cell transplantation, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

The randomized SWOG S1826 trial of 976 patients with newly diagnosed stage 3 or 4 Hodgkin lymphoma included patients ranging in age from as young as 12 to 83 years, and at a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the addition of nivolumab to the chemotherapy regimen of doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD) was associated with as much as a 52% reduction in the risk of disease-related death, compared with the addition of brentuximab.

The results are especially important considering that Hodgkin lymphoma disproportionately affects younger patients, including those in their teens, 20s, and 30s, Dr. Herrera noted in an interview.

“We found that treatment with nivolumab reduced the risk of progression by half, and, importantly, the benefit was observed across subgroups,” he said.
 

Relapse/refractory disease common in advanced HL

In general, outcomes are relatively good even for stage III or IV Hodgkin lymphoma; however, about a quarter of patients still have relapses or refractory disease.

While the introduction of novel frontline treatment with brentuximab-AVD was important in improving overall survival, the regimen adds toxicity, particularly among older patients, and many pediatric patients receiving the therapy still require radiation therapy, with its undesirable side effects.

Meanwhile, the progressive death 1 inhibitor nivolumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration, gained interest as a potentially ideal alternative in light of Hodgkin lymphoma’s status basically as “the poster child for PD-1 blockade,” Dr. Herrera said.

“There are genetic changes in the Hodgkin lymphoma tumor cell that lead to expression of PD-1 ligands on the surface of Hodgkin lymphoma cells, and when we use a drug like nivolumab, we see that even patients with the most treatment-resistant rates of lymphoma have as much as a 70% response rate,” he explained in a press briefing.

To further investigate, the first-of-its-kind collaboration of adult and pediatric cancer teams conducted the S1826 trial to evaluate the treatment across age groups with stage 3 and 4 Hodgkin lymphoma.

For the study, conducted between July 2019 and October 2022, 976 patients were randomized to treatment either with nivolumab (n = 489) or brentuximab (n = 487), each in combination with the AVD regimen.

Of the patients, the median age was 27, with 24% under the age of 18, 10% over 60 and 32% with IPS 4-7. Among them, 56% were male and 76% were White.

For the primary endpoint, at a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly higher in the nivolumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.48; one-sided P = .0005), with the rate of 1-year survival at 94% in the nivolumab group versus 86% in the brentuximab group, for a 52% reduction in the risk of disease-related death with nivolumab versus brentuximab.

A total of 11 deaths occurred in the brentuximab group, 7 of which were related to adverse events, compared with 4 deaths in the nivolumab group, 3 of which were related to nivolumab.

Importantly, fewer than 1% of patients with nivolumab required radiation therapy.

“That’s a dramatic reduction of the proportion of the very youngest patients receiving radiotherapy,” Dr. Herrera noted.

Grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse events were higher in the nivolumab group, at 48.4%, including 45.1% that were grade 3 or higher neutropenia, compared with 30.5% with brentuximab, including 23.9% with grade 3 or higher neutropenia.

However, rates of any grade of febrile neutropenia were similar with nivolumab and brentuximab (5.6% vs. 6.4%, respectively), as were rates of pneumonitis (2.0% vs. 3.2%), ALT elevation (30.7% vs. 39.8%), and colitis (1% vs. 1.3%).

In addition, rates of hypo- and hyperthyroidism were more frequent after nivolumab (7% and 3% with nivolumab, respectively, vs. fewer than 1% with brentuximab).

But, of note, peripheral neuropathy of any grade was more common after brentuximab (sensory: 28.1% nivolumab vs. 54.2% brentuximab; motor: 4% nivolumab vs. 6.8% brentuximab).

“I can’t emphasize how important neuropathy is as a side effect in these young patients who have the rest of their life ahead of them,” Dr. Herrera explained. “It’s fantastic to be cured of cancer, but tough to not be able to feel your fingers and toes.”

With its broad inclusion of age groups and a diverse population, he added that the study was importantly a “representative” trial, reflecting a “real-world population.”

“Incredibly, a quarter of patients were under the age of 18; 10% were over the age of 60, a quarter of patients were Hispanic and Black, and in fact we had a quite good representation of higher-risk subgroups,” he said.

Looking forward, longer-term follow-up from this study will be important in determining if the improvement observed in disease-related deaths is maintained over time, Dr. Herrera noted.

“Additionally, it is crucial to obtain data on other key outcomes such as overall survival and quality of life from longer-term follow of this study,” he said.
 

‘A huge step forward’

Commenting on the study, Oreofe Odejide, MD, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said that results were unprecedented.

“Although a majority of patients with advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma will be cured with initial therapy, about 20% of patients still end up with relapsed or refractory disease,” she said in an interview. “Therefore, the findings from this study represent a huge step forward in the management of advanced Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adults, leading to an improved and well-tolerated standard of care.”

Dr. Odejide agreed that the findings are potentially practice changing.

“Brentuximab-AVD set a high bar for the treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma, as it was the first regimen to show a meaningful improvement in disease-related death compared to ABVD chemotherapy in several years,” she explained.

“The fact that the SWOG1826 trial now shows a significant benefit of nivolumab-AVD over brentuximab and included both pediatric and adult patients unlike prior studies, is highly compelling,” Dr. Odejide added. “This has strong potential to change the standard of care for patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma.”

The study received funding from the National Cancer Institute and from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Herrera reported relationships with Abbvie, ADC Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, Regeneron, Seagen, Takeda, and Tubulis Gmbh. Dr. Odejide reported no disclosures.

Across patients’ age groups, adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improves progression-free survival in advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma while also reducing toxicities, making it a new standard of care, compared with the CD30-targeting drug brentuximab vedotin.

“[SWOG] S1826, the largest Hodgkin lymphoma study in National Clinical Trials Network history, is a key step toward harmonizing the pediatric and adult treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma,” the authors reported in late-breaking research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Based on the magnitude of the benefit and with nivolumab being better tolerated than brentuximab, we anticipate that these results will be practice changing and nivolumab [and chemotherapy] will become a new standard of care,” lead author Alex Francisco Herrera, MD, an associate professor and chief of the division of lymphoma in the department of hematology and hematopoietic cell transplantation, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

The randomized SWOG S1826 trial of 976 patients with newly diagnosed stage 3 or 4 Hodgkin lymphoma included patients ranging in age from as young as 12 to 83 years, and at a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the addition of nivolumab to the chemotherapy regimen of doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD) was associated with as much as a 52% reduction in the risk of disease-related death, compared with the addition of brentuximab.

The results are especially important considering that Hodgkin lymphoma disproportionately affects younger patients, including those in their teens, 20s, and 30s, Dr. Herrera noted in an interview.

“We found that treatment with nivolumab reduced the risk of progression by half, and, importantly, the benefit was observed across subgroups,” he said.
 

Relapse/refractory disease common in advanced HL

In general, outcomes are relatively good even for stage III or IV Hodgkin lymphoma; however, about a quarter of patients still have relapses or refractory disease.

While the introduction of novel frontline treatment with brentuximab-AVD was important in improving overall survival, the regimen adds toxicity, particularly among older patients, and many pediatric patients receiving the therapy still require radiation therapy, with its undesirable side effects.

Meanwhile, the progressive death 1 inhibitor nivolumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration, gained interest as a potentially ideal alternative in light of Hodgkin lymphoma’s status basically as “the poster child for PD-1 blockade,” Dr. Herrera said.

“There are genetic changes in the Hodgkin lymphoma tumor cell that lead to expression of PD-1 ligands on the surface of Hodgkin lymphoma cells, and when we use a drug like nivolumab, we see that even patients with the most treatment-resistant rates of lymphoma have as much as a 70% response rate,” he explained in a press briefing.

To further investigate, the first-of-its-kind collaboration of adult and pediatric cancer teams conducted the S1826 trial to evaluate the treatment across age groups with stage 3 and 4 Hodgkin lymphoma.

For the study, conducted between July 2019 and October 2022, 976 patients were randomized to treatment either with nivolumab (n = 489) or brentuximab (n = 487), each in combination with the AVD regimen.

Of the patients, the median age was 27, with 24% under the age of 18, 10% over 60 and 32% with IPS 4-7. Among them, 56% were male and 76% were White.

For the primary endpoint, at a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly higher in the nivolumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.48; one-sided P = .0005), with the rate of 1-year survival at 94% in the nivolumab group versus 86% in the brentuximab group, for a 52% reduction in the risk of disease-related death with nivolumab versus brentuximab.

A total of 11 deaths occurred in the brentuximab group, 7 of which were related to adverse events, compared with 4 deaths in the nivolumab group, 3 of which were related to nivolumab.

Importantly, fewer than 1% of patients with nivolumab required radiation therapy.

“That’s a dramatic reduction of the proportion of the very youngest patients receiving radiotherapy,” Dr. Herrera noted.

Grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse events were higher in the nivolumab group, at 48.4%, including 45.1% that were grade 3 or higher neutropenia, compared with 30.5% with brentuximab, including 23.9% with grade 3 or higher neutropenia.

However, rates of any grade of febrile neutropenia were similar with nivolumab and brentuximab (5.6% vs. 6.4%, respectively), as were rates of pneumonitis (2.0% vs. 3.2%), ALT elevation (30.7% vs. 39.8%), and colitis (1% vs. 1.3%).

In addition, rates of hypo- and hyperthyroidism were more frequent after nivolumab (7% and 3% with nivolumab, respectively, vs. fewer than 1% with brentuximab).

But, of note, peripheral neuropathy of any grade was more common after brentuximab (sensory: 28.1% nivolumab vs. 54.2% brentuximab; motor: 4% nivolumab vs. 6.8% brentuximab).

“I can’t emphasize how important neuropathy is as a side effect in these young patients who have the rest of their life ahead of them,” Dr. Herrera explained. “It’s fantastic to be cured of cancer, but tough to not be able to feel your fingers and toes.”

With its broad inclusion of age groups and a diverse population, he added that the study was importantly a “representative” trial, reflecting a “real-world population.”

“Incredibly, a quarter of patients were under the age of 18; 10% were over the age of 60, a quarter of patients were Hispanic and Black, and in fact we had a quite good representation of higher-risk subgroups,” he said.

Looking forward, longer-term follow-up from this study will be important in determining if the improvement observed in disease-related deaths is maintained over time, Dr. Herrera noted.

“Additionally, it is crucial to obtain data on other key outcomes such as overall survival and quality of life from longer-term follow of this study,” he said.
 

‘A huge step forward’

Commenting on the study, Oreofe Odejide, MD, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said that results were unprecedented.

“Although a majority of patients with advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma will be cured with initial therapy, about 20% of patients still end up with relapsed or refractory disease,” she said in an interview. “Therefore, the findings from this study represent a huge step forward in the management of advanced Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adults, leading to an improved and well-tolerated standard of care.”

Dr. Odejide agreed that the findings are potentially practice changing.

“Brentuximab-AVD set a high bar for the treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma, as it was the first regimen to show a meaningful improvement in disease-related death compared to ABVD chemotherapy in several years,” she explained.

“The fact that the SWOG1826 trial now shows a significant benefit of nivolumab-AVD over brentuximab and included both pediatric and adult patients unlike prior studies, is highly compelling,” Dr. Odejide added. “This has strong potential to change the standard of care for patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma.”

The study received funding from the National Cancer Institute and from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Herrera reported relationships with Abbvie, ADC Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, Regeneron, Seagen, Takeda, and Tubulis Gmbh. Dr. Odejide reported no disclosures.

Across patients’ age groups, adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improves progression-free survival in advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma while also reducing toxicities, making it a new standard of care, compared with the CD30-targeting drug brentuximab vedotin.

“[SWOG] S1826, the largest Hodgkin lymphoma study in National Clinical Trials Network history, is a key step toward harmonizing the pediatric and adult treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma,” the authors reported in late-breaking research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Based on the magnitude of the benefit and with nivolumab being better tolerated than brentuximab, we anticipate that these results will be practice changing and nivolumab [and chemotherapy] will become a new standard of care,” lead author Alex Francisco Herrera, MD, an associate professor and chief of the division of lymphoma in the department of hematology and hematopoietic cell transplantation, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

The randomized SWOG S1826 trial of 976 patients with newly diagnosed stage 3 or 4 Hodgkin lymphoma included patients ranging in age from as young as 12 to 83 years, and at a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the addition of nivolumab to the chemotherapy regimen of doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD) was associated with as much as a 52% reduction in the risk of disease-related death, compared with the addition of brentuximab.

The results are especially important considering that Hodgkin lymphoma disproportionately affects younger patients, including those in their teens, 20s, and 30s, Dr. Herrera noted in an interview.

“We found that treatment with nivolumab reduced the risk of progression by half, and, importantly, the benefit was observed across subgroups,” he said.
 

Relapse/refractory disease common in advanced HL

In general, outcomes are relatively good even for stage III or IV Hodgkin lymphoma; however, about a quarter of patients still have relapses or refractory disease.

While the introduction of novel frontline treatment with brentuximab-AVD was important in improving overall survival, the regimen adds toxicity, particularly among older patients, and many pediatric patients receiving the therapy still require radiation therapy, with its undesirable side effects.

Meanwhile, the progressive death 1 inhibitor nivolumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration, gained interest as a potentially ideal alternative in light of Hodgkin lymphoma’s status basically as “the poster child for PD-1 blockade,” Dr. Herrera said.

“There are genetic changes in the Hodgkin lymphoma tumor cell that lead to expression of PD-1 ligands on the surface of Hodgkin lymphoma cells, and when we use a drug like nivolumab, we see that even patients with the most treatment-resistant rates of lymphoma have as much as a 70% response rate,” he explained in a press briefing.

To further investigate, the first-of-its-kind collaboration of adult and pediatric cancer teams conducted the S1826 trial to evaluate the treatment across age groups with stage 3 and 4 Hodgkin lymphoma.

For the study, conducted between July 2019 and October 2022, 976 patients were randomized to treatment either with nivolumab (n = 489) or brentuximab (n = 487), each in combination with the AVD regimen.

Of the patients, the median age was 27, with 24% under the age of 18, 10% over 60 and 32% with IPS 4-7. Among them, 56% were male and 76% were White.

For the primary endpoint, at a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly higher in the nivolumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.48; one-sided P = .0005), with the rate of 1-year survival at 94% in the nivolumab group versus 86% in the brentuximab group, for a 52% reduction in the risk of disease-related death with nivolumab versus brentuximab.

A total of 11 deaths occurred in the brentuximab group, 7 of which were related to adverse events, compared with 4 deaths in the nivolumab group, 3 of which were related to nivolumab.

Importantly, fewer than 1% of patients with nivolumab required radiation therapy.

“That’s a dramatic reduction of the proportion of the very youngest patients receiving radiotherapy,” Dr. Herrera noted.

Grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse events were higher in the nivolumab group, at 48.4%, including 45.1% that were grade 3 or higher neutropenia, compared with 30.5% with brentuximab, including 23.9% with grade 3 or higher neutropenia.

However, rates of any grade of febrile neutropenia were similar with nivolumab and brentuximab (5.6% vs. 6.4%, respectively), as were rates of pneumonitis (2.0% vs. 3.2%), ALT elevation (30.7% vs. 39.8%), and colitis (1% vs. 1.3%).

In addition, rates of hypo- and hyperthyroidism were more frequent after nivolumab (7% and 3% with nivolumab, respectively, vs. fewer than 1% with brentuximab).

But, of note, peripheral neuropathy of any grade was more common after brentuximab (sensory: 28.1% nivolumab vs. 54.2% brentuximab; motor: 4% nivolumab vs. 6.8% brentuximab).

“I can’t emphasize how important neuropathy is as a side effect in these young patients who have the rest of their life ahead of them,” Dr. Herrera explained. “It’s fantastic to be cured of cancer, but tough to not be able to feel your fingers and toes.”

With its broad inclusion of age groups and a diverse population, he added that the study was importantly a “representative” trial, reflecting a “real-world population.”

“Incredibly, a quarter of patients were under the age of 18; 10% were over the age of 60, a quarter of patients were Hispanic and Black, and in fact we had a quite good representation of higher-risk subgroups,” he said.

Looking forward, longer-term follow-up from this study will be important in determining if the improvement observed in disease-related deaths is maintained over time, Dr. Herrera noted.

“Additionally, it is crucial to obtain data on other key outcomes such as overall survival and quality of life from longer-term follow of this study,” he said.
 

‘A huge step forward’

Commenting on the study, Oreofe Odejide, MD, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said that results were unprecedented.

“Although a majority of patients with advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma will be cured with initial therapy, about 20% of patients still end up with relapsed or refractory disease,” she said in an interview. “Therefore, the findings from this study represent a huge step forward in the management of advanced Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adults, leading to an improved and well-tolerated standard of care.”

Dr. Odejide agreed that the findings are potentially practice changing.

“Brentuximab-AVD set a high bar for the treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma, as it was the first regimen to show a meaningful improvement in disease-related death compared to ABVD chemotherapy in several years,” she explained.

“The fact that the SWOG1826 trial now shows a significant benefit of nivolumab-AVD over brentuximab and included both pediatric and adult patients unlike prior studies, is highly compelling,” Dr. Odejide added. “This has strong potential to change the standard of care for patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma.”

The study received funding from the National Cancer Institute and from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Herrera reported relationships with Abbvie, ADC Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, Regeneron, Seagen, Takeda, and Tubulis Gmbh. Dr. Odejide reported no disclosures.

While physicians are getting less of a Medicare pay cut than they thought this year (Congress voted to cut Medicare payments by 2%, which was less than the expected 8.5%), Medicare still pays physicians only 80% of what many third-party insurers pay.

Moreover, those reimbursements are often slow to arrive, and the paperwork is burdensome. In fact, about 65% of doctors won’t accept new Medicare patients, down from 71% just 5 years ago, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023.

Worse, inflation makes continuous cuts feel even steeper and trickles down to physicians and their patients as more and more doctors become disenchanted and consider dropping Medicare.
 

Medicare at a glance

Medicare pays physicians about 80% of the “reasonable charge” for covered services. At the same time, private insurers pay nearly double Medicare rates for hospital services.

The Medicare fee schedule is released each year. Physicians who accept Medicare can choose to be a “participating provider” by agreeing to the fee schedule and to not charging more than this amount. “Nonparticipating” providers can charge up to 15% more. Physicians can also opt out of Medicare entirely.

The earliest that physicians receive their payment is 14 days after electronic filing to 28 days after paper filing, but it often can take months.

Physicians lose an estimated 7.3% of Medicare claims to billing problems. With private insurers, an estimated 4.8% is lost.

In 2000, there were 50 million Medicare enrollees; it is projected that by 2050, there will be 87 million enrollees.
 

Why are doctors disenchanted?

“When Medicare started, the concept of the program was good,” said Rahul Gupta, MD, a geriatrician in Westport, Conn., and chief of internal medicine at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, Conn. “However, over the years, with new developments in medicine and the explosion of the Medicare-eligible population, the program hasn’t kept up with coverages.” In addition, Medicare’s behemoth power as a government-run agency has ramifications that trickle down irrespective of a patient’s insurance carrier.

“Medicare sets the tone on price and reimbursement, and everyone follows suit,” Dr. Gupta said. “It’s a race to the bottom.”

“The program is great for patients when people need hospitalizations, skilled nursing, and physical therapy,” Dr. Gupta said. “But it’s not great about keeping people healthier and maintaining function via preventive treatments.” Many private insurers must become more adept at that too.

For instance, Dr. Gupta laments the lack of coverage for hearing aids, something his patients could greatly benefit from. Thanks to the Build Back Better bill, coverage of hearing aids will begin in 2024. But, again, most private insurers don’t cover hearing aids either. Some Medicare Advantage plans do.

Medicare doesn’t cover eye health (except for eye exams for diabetes patients), which is an issue for Daniel Laroche, MD, a glaucoma specialist and clinical associate professor of ophthalmology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“I get paid less for Medicare patients by about 20% because of ‘lesser-of’ payments,” said Dr. Laroche. For example, as per Medicare, after patients meet their Part B deductible, they pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for glaucoma testing. “It would be nice to get the full amount for Medicare patients.”

“In addition, getting approvals for testing takes time and exhaustive amounts of paperwork, says Adeeti Gupta, MD, a gynecologist and founder of Walk In GYN Care in New York.

“Medicare only covers gynecologist visits every 2 years after the age of 65,” she said. “Any additional testing requires authorization, and Medicare doesn’t cover hormone replacement at all, which really makes me crazy. They will cover Viagra for men, but they won’t cover HRT, which prolongs life, reduces dementia, and prevents bone loss.”

While these three doctors find Medicare lacking in its coverage of their specialty, and their reimbursements are too low, many physicians also find fault regarding Medicare billing, which can put their patients at risk.
 

The problem with Medicare billing

Because claims are processed by Medicare administrative contractors, it can take about a month for the approval or denial process and for doctors to receive reimbursement.

Prior authorizations, especially with Medicare Advantage plans, are also problematic. For example, one 2022 study found that 18% of payment denials were for services that met coverage and billing rules.

Worse, all of this jockeying for coverage takes time. The average health care provider spends 16.4 hours a week on paperwork and on securing prior authorizations to cover services, according to the American Medical Association.

“A good 40% of my time is exclusively Medicare red tape paperwork,” Rahul Gupta says. “There’s a reason I spend 2-3 hours a night catching up on that stuff.”

Not only does this lead to burnout, but it also means that most physicians must hire an administrator to help with the paperwork.

In comparison, industry averages put the denial rate for all Medicare and private insurance claims at 20%.

“Excessive authorization controls required by health insurers are persistently responsible for serious harm to physician practices and patients when necessary medical care is delayed, denied, or disrupted in an attempt to increase profits,” Dr. Laroche said.

“Our office spends nearly 2 days per week on prior authorizations, creating costly administrative burdens.”

For Adeeti Gupta, the frustrations with Medicare have continued to mount. “We’re just at a dead end,” she said. “Authorizations keep getting denied, and the back-end paperwork is only increasing for us.”
 

Will more doctors opt out of Medicare?

When doctors don’t accept Medicare, it hurts the patients using it, especially patients who have selected either a Medicare Advantage plan or who become eligible for Medicare at age 65 only to find that fewer doctors take the government-sponsored insurance than in the past.

As of 2020, only 1% of nonpediatric physicians had formally opted out, per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Psychiatrists account for the largest share of opt-outs (7.2%).

“Unfortunately, most doctors outside of hospital-based practices will reach a point when they can’t deal with Medicare paperwork, so they’ll stop taking it,” Rahul Gupta says.

A coalition of 120 physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, disputes that Medicare is paying a fair reimbursement rate to physicians and calls for an overhaul in how they adjust physician pay.

“Nothing much changes no matter how much the AMA shouts,” Rahul Gupta said in an interview.
 

What can doctors do

Prescription prices are another example of the challenges posed by Medicare. When prescriptions are denied because of Medicare’s medigap (or donut hole) program, which puts a cap on medication coverage, which was $4,660 in 2023, Dr. Gupta says she turns to alternative ways to fill them.

“I’ve been telling patients to pay out of pocket and use GoodRx, or we get medications compounded,” she said. “That’s cheaper. For example, for HRT, GoodRx can bring down the cost 40% to 50%.”

The American Medical Association as well as 150 other medical advocacy groups continue to urge Congress to work with the physician community to address the systematic problems within Medicare, especially reimbursement.

Despite the daily challenges, Rahul Gupta says he remains committed to caring for his patients.

“I want to care for the elderly, especially because they already have very few physicians to take care of them, and fortunately, I have a good practice with other coverages,” he said. “I can’t give up.”

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

While physicians are getting less of a Medicare pay cut than they thought this year (Congress voted to cut Medicare payments by 2%, which was less than the expected 8.5%), Medicare still pays physicians only 80% of what many third-party insurers pay.

Moreover, those reimbursements are often slow to arrive, and the paperwork is burdensome. In fact, about 65% of doctors won’t accept new Medicare patients, down from 71% just 5 years ago, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023.

Worse, inflation makes continuous cuts feel even steeper and trickles down to physicians and their patients as more and more doctors become disenchanted and consider dropping Medicare.
 

Medicare at a glance

Medicare pays physicians about 80% of the “reasonable charge” for covered services. At the same time, private insurers pay nearly double Medicare rates for hospital services.

The Medicare fee schedule is released each year. Physicians who accept Medicare can choose to be a “participating provider” by agreeing to the fee schedule and to not charging more than this amount. “Nonparticipating” providers can charge up to 15% more. Physicians can also opt out of Medicare entirely.

The earliest that physicians receive their payment is 14 days after electronic filing to 28 days after paper filing, but it often can take months.

Physicians lose an estimated 7.3% of Medicare claims to billing problems. With private insurers, an estimated 4.8% is lost.

In 2000, there were 50 million Medicare enrollees; it is projected that by 2050, there will be 87 million enrollees.
 

Why are doctors disenchanted?

“When Medicare started, the concept of the program was good,” said Rahul Gupta, MD, a geriatrician in Westport, Conn., and chief of internal medicine at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, Conn. “However, over the years, with new developments in medicine and the explosion of the Medicare-eligible population, the program hasn’t kept up with coverages.” In addition, Medicare’s behemoth power as a government-run agency has ramifications that trickle down irrespective of a patient’s insurance carrier.

“Medicare sets the tone on price and reimbursement, and everyone follows suit,” Dr. Gupta said. “It’s a race to the bottom.”

“The program is great for patients when people need hospitalizations, skilled nursing, and physical therapy,” Dr. Gupta said. “But it’s not great about keeping people healthier and maintaining function via preventive treatments.” Many private insurers must become more adept at that too.

For instance, Dr. Gupta laments the lack of coverage for hearing aids, something his patients could greatly benefit from. Thanks to the Build Back Better bill, coverage of hearing aids will begin in 2024. But, again, most private insurers don’t cover hearing aids either. Some Medicare Advantage plans do.

Medicare doesn’t cover eye health (except for eye exams for diabetes patients), which is an issue for Daniel Laroche, MD, a glaucoma specialist and clinical associate professor of ophthalmology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“I get paid less for Medicare patients by about 20% because of ‘lesser-of’ payments,” said Dr. Laroche. For example, as per Medicare, after patients meet their Part B deductible, they pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for glaucoma testing. “It would be nice to get the full amount for Medicare patients.”

“In addition, getting approvals for testing takes time and exhaustive amounts of paperwork, says Adeeti Gupta, MD, a gynecologist and founder of Walk In GYN Care in New York.

“Medicare only covers gynecologist visits every 2 years after the age of 65,” she said. “Any additional testing requires authorization, and Medicare doesn’t cover hormone replacement at all, which really makes me crazy. They will cover Viagra for men, but they won’t cover HRT, which prolongs life, reduces dementia, and prevents bone loss.”

While these three doctors find Medicare lacking in its coverage of their specialty, and their reimbursements are too low, many physicians also find fault regarding Medicare billing, which can put their patients at risk.
 

The problem with Medicare billing

Because claims are processed by Medicare administrative contractors, it can take about a month for the approval or denial process and for doctors to receive reimbursement.

Prior authorizations, especially with Medicare Advantage plans, are also problematic. For example, one 2022 study found that 18% of payment denials were for services that met coverage and billing rules.

Worse, all of this jockeying for coverage takes time. The average health care provider spends 16.4 hours a week on paperwork and on securing prior authorizations to cover services, according to the American Medical Association.

“A good 40% of my time is exclusively Medicare red tape paperwork,” Rahul Gupta says. “There’s a reason I spend 2-3 hours a night catching up on that stuff.”

Not only does this lead to burnout, but it also means that most physicians must hire an administrator to help with the paperwork.

In comparison, industry averages put the denial rate for all Medicare and private insurance claims at 20%.

“Excessive authorization controls required by health insurers are persistently responsible for serious harm to physician practices and patients when necessary medical care is delayed, denied, or disrupted in an attempt to increase profits,” Dr. Laroche said.

“Our office spends nearly 2 days per week on prior authorizations, creating costly administrative burdens.”

For Adeeti Gupta, the frustrations with Medicare have continued to mount. “We’re just at a dead end,” she said. “Authorizations keep getting denied, and the back-end paperwork is only increasing for us.”
 

Will more doctors opt out of Medicare?

When doctors don’t accept Medicare, it hurts the patients using it, especially patients who have selected either a Medicare Advantage plan or who become eligible for Medicare at age 65 only to find that fewer doctors take the government-sponsored insurance than in the past.

As of 2020, only 1% of nonpediatric physicians had formally opted out, per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Psychiatrists account for the largest share of opt-outs (7.2%).

“Unfortunately, most doctors outside of hospital-based practices will reach a point when they can’t deal with Medicare paperwork, so they’ll stop taking it,” Rahul Gupta says.

A coalition of 120 physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, disputes that Medicare is paying a fair reimbursement rate to physicians and calls for an overhaul in how they adjust physician pay.

“Nothing much changes no matter how much the AMA shouts,” Rahul Gupta said in an interview.
 

What can doctors do

Prescription prices are another example of the challenges posed by Medicare. When prescriptions are denied because of Medicare’s medigap (or donut hole) program, which puts a cap on medication coverage, which was $4,660 in 2023, Dr. Gupta says she turns to alternative ways to fill them.

“I’ve been telling patients to pay out of pocket and use GoodRx, or we get medications compounded,” she said. “That’s cheaper. For example, for HRT, GoodRx can bring down the cost 40% to 50%.”

The American Medical Association as well as 150 other medical advocacy groups continue to urge Congress to work with the physician community to address the systematic problems within Medicare, especially reimbursement.

Despite the daily challenges, Rahul Gupta says he remains committed to caring for his patients.

“I want to care for the elderly, especially because they already have very few physicians to take care of them, and fortunately, I have a good practice with other coverages,” he said. “I can’t give up.”

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

While physicians are getting less of a Medicare pay cut than they thought this year (Congress voted to cut Medicare payments by 2%, which was less than the expected 8.5%), Medicare still pays physicians only 80% of what many third-party insurers pay.

Moreover, those reimbursements are often slow to arrive, and the paperwork is burdensome. In fact, about 65% of doctors won’t accept new Medicare patients, down from 71% just 5 years ago, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023.

Worse, inflation makes continuous cuts feel even steeper and trickles down to physicians and their patients as more and more doctors become disenchanted and consider dropping Medicare.
 

Medicare at a glance

Medicare pays physicians about 80% of the “reasonable charge” for covered services. At the same time, private insurers pay nearly double Medicare rates for hospital services.

The Medicare fee schedule is released each year. Physicians who accept Medicare can choose to be a “participating provider” by agreeing to the fee schedule and to not charging more than this amount. “Nonparticipating” providers can charge up to 15% more. Physicians can also opt out of Medicare entirely.

The earliest that physicians receive their payment is 14 days after electronic filing to 28 days after paper filing, but it often can take months.

Physicians lose an estimated 7.3% of Medicare claims to billing problems. With private insurers, an estimated 4.8% is lost.

In 2000, there were 50 million Medicare enrollees; it is projected that by 2050, there will be 87 million enrollees.
 

Why are doctors disenchanted?

“When Medicare started, the concept of the program was good,” said Rahul Gupta, MD, a geriatrician in Westport, Conn., and chief of internal medicine at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, Conn. “However, over the years, with new developments in medicine and the explosion of the Medicare-eligible population, the program hasn’t kept up with coverages.” In addition, Medicare’s behemoth power as a government-run agency has ramifications that trickle down irrespective of a patient’s insurance carrier.

“Medicare sets the tone on price and reimbursement, and everyone follows suit,” Dr. Gupta said. “It’s a race to the bottom.”

“The program is great for patients when people need hospitalizations, skilled nursing, and physical therapy,” Dr. Gupta said. “But it’s not great about keeping people healthier and maintaining function via preventive treatments.” Many private insurers must become more adept at that too.

For instance, Dr. Gupta laments the lack of coverage for hearing aids, something his patients could greatly benefit from. Thanks to the Build Back Better bill, coverage of hearing aids will begin in 2024. But, again, most private insurers don’t cover hearing aids either. Some Medicare Advantage plans do.

Medicare doesn’t cover eye health (except for eye exams for diabetes patients), which is an issue for Daniel Laroche, MD, a glaucoma specialist and clinical associate professor of ophthalmology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“I get paid less for Medicare patients by about 20% because of ‘lesser-of’ payments,” said Dr. Laroche. For example, as per Medicare, after patients meet their Part B deductible, they pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for glaucoma testing. “It would be nice to get the full amount for Medicare patients.”

“In addition, getting approvals for testing takes time and exhaustive amounts of paperwork, says Adeeti Gupta, MD, a gynecologist and founder of Walk In GYN Care in New York.

“Medicare only covers gynecologist visits every 2 years after the age of 65,” she said. “Any additional testing requires authorization, and Medicare doesn’t cover hormone replacement at all, which really makes me crazy. They will cover Viagra for men, but they won’t cover HRT, which prolongs life, reduces dementia, and prevents bone loss.”

While these three doctors find Medicare lacking in its coverage of their specialty, and their reimbursements are too low, many physicians also find fault regarding Medicare billing, which can put their patients at risk.
 

The problem with Medicare billing

Because claims are processed by Medicare administrative contractors, it can take about a month for the approval or denial process and for doctors to receive reimbursement.

Prior authorizations, especially with Medicare Advantage plans, are also problematic. For example, one 2022 study found that 18% of payment denials were for services that met coverage and billing rules.

Worse, all of this jockeying for coverage takes time. The average health care provider spends 16.4 hours a week on paperwork and on securing prior authorizations to cover services, according to the American Medical Association.

“A good 40% of my time is exclusively Medicare red tape paperwork,” Rahul Gupta says. “There’s a reason I spend 2-3 hours a night catching up on that stuff.”

Not only does this lead to burnout, but it also means that most physicians must hire an administrator to help with the paperwork.

In comparison, industry averages put the denial rate for all Medicare and private insurance claims at 20%.

“Excessive authorization controls required by health insurers are persistently responsible for serious harm to physician practices and patients when necessary medical care is delayed, denied, or disrupted in an attempt to increase profits,” Dr. Laroche said.

“Our office spends nearly 2 days per week on prior authorizations, creating costly administrative burdens.”

For Adeeti Gupta, the frustrations with Medicare have continued to mount. “We’re just at a dead end,” she said. “Authorizations keep getting denied, and the back-end paperwork is only increasing for us.”
 

Will more doctors opt out of Medicare?

When doctors don’t accept Medicare, it hurts the patients using it, especially patients who have selected either a Medicare Advantage plan or who become eligible for Medicare at age 65 only to find that fewer doctors take the government-sponsored insurance than in the past.

As of 2020, only 1% of nonpediatric physicians had formally opted out, per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Psychiatrists account for the largest share of opt-outs (7.2%).

“Unfortunately, most doctors outside of hospital-based practices will reach a point when they can’t deal with Medicare paperwork, so they’ll stop taking it,” Rahul Gupta says.

A coalition of 120 physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, disputes that Medicare is paying a fair reimbursement rate to physicians and calls for an overhaul in how they adjust physician pay.

“Nothing much changes no matter how much the AMA shouts,” Rahul Gupta said in an interview.
 

What can doctors do

Prescription prices are another example of the challenges posed by Medicare. When prescriptions are denied because of Medicare’s medigap (or donut hole) program, which puts a cap on medication coverage, which was $4,660 in 2023, Dr. Gupta says she turns to alternative ways to fill them.

“I’ve been telling patients to pay out of pocket and use GoodRx, or we get medications compounded,” she said. “That’s cheaper. For example, for HRT, GoodRx can bring down the cost 40% to 50%.”

The American Medical Association as well as 150 other medical advocacy groups continue to urge Congress to work with the physician community to address the systematic problems within Medicare, especially reimbursement.

Despite the daily challenges, Rahul Gupta says he remains committed to caring for his patients.

“I want to care for the elderly, especially because they already have very few physicians to take care of them, and fortunately, I have a good practice with other coverages,” he said. “I can’t give up.”

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

The costs of providing evidence-based interventions in primary care to address social needs far exceed current federal funding streams, say the authors of a new analysis.

A microsimulation analysis by Sanjay Basu, MD, PhD, with Clinical Product Development, Waymark Care, San Francisco, and colleagues found that, as primary care practices are being asked to screen for social needs, the cost of providing evidence-based interventions for these needs averaged $60 per member/person per month (PMPM) (95% confidence interval, $55-$65).

However, less than half ($27) of the $60 cost had existing federal financing in place to pay for it. Of the $60, $5 was for screening and referral.

The study results were published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers looked at key social needs areas and found major gaps between what interventions cost and what’s covered by federal payers. They demonstrate the gaps in four key areas. Many people in the analysis have more than one need:

• Food insecurity: Cost was $23 PMPM and the proportion borne by existing federal payers was 61.6%.
• Housing insecurity: Cost was $3 PMPM; proportion borne by federal payers was 45.6%.
• Transportation insecurity: Cost was $0.1 PMPM; proportion borne by federal payers was 27.8%.
• Community-based care coordination: Cost was $0.6 PMPM; proportion borne by federal payers is 6.4%.

Gaps varied by type of center

Primary care practices were grouped into federally qualified health centers; non-FQHC urban practices in high-poverty areas; non-FQHC rural practices in high-poverty areas; and practices in lower-poverty areas. Gaps varied among the groups.

While disproportionate funding was available to populations seen at FQHCs, populations seen at non-FQHC practices in high-poverty areas had larger funding gaps.

The study population consisted of 19,225 patients seen in primary care practices; data on social needs were pulled from the National Center for Health Statistics from 2015 to 2018.

Dr. Basu said in an interview with the journal’s deputy editor, Mitchell Katz, MD, that new sustainable revenue streams need to be identified to close the gap. Primary care physicians should not be charged with tasks such as researching the best housing programs and food benefits.

“I can’t imagine fitting this into my primary care appointments,” he said.
 

Is primary care the best setting for addressing these needs?

In an accompanying comment, Jenifer Clapp, MPA, with the Office of Ambulatory Care and Population Health, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, and colleagues wrote that the study raises the question of whether the health care setting is the right place for addressing social needs. Some aspects have to be addressed in health care, such as asking about the home environment for a patient with environmentally triggered asthma.

“But how involved should health care professionals be in identifying needs unrelated to illness and solving those needs?” Ms. Clapp and colleagues asked.

They wrote that the health care sector in the United States must address these needs because in the United States, unlike in many European countries, “there is an insufficient social service sector to address the basic human needs of children and working-age adults.”
 

Eligible but not enrolled

Importantly, both the study authors and editorialists pointed out, in many cases, intervening doesn’t mean paying for the social services, but helping patients enroll in the services for which they already qualify.

The study authors wrote that among people who had food and housing needs, most met the criteria for federally funded programs, but had low enrollment for reasons including inadequate program capacity.

For example, 78% of people with housing needs were eligible for federal programs but only 24% were enrolled, and 95.6% of people with food needs were eligible for programs but only 70.2% were enrolled in programs like the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program and Women, Infants and Children.

Commentary coauthor Nichola Davis, MD, also with NYC Health + Hospitals, said one thing they’ve done at NYC Health + Hospitals is partner with community-based organizations that provide food navigators so when patients screen positive for food insecurity they can then be seen by a food navigator to pinpoint appropriate programs.

The referral for those who indicate food insecurity is automatically generated by the electronic health system and appears on the after-visit summary.

“At the bare minimum, the patient would leave with a list of resources,” Dr. Davis said.
 

One place primary care providers can make a difference

Dr. Katz said that the $60 cost per person is much lower than that for a service such as an MRI.

“We should be able to achieve that,” he said.

Will Bleser, PhD, MSPH, assistant research director of health care transformation for social needs and health equity at the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Washington, said it’s exciting to see the per-person cost for social needs quantified.

He pointed to existing revenue options that have been underutilized.

Through Medicare, he noted, if you are part of a Medicare Advantage plan, there is a program implemented in 2020 called Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill. “That authorizes Medicare Advantage plans to offer non–primarily health-related services through Medicare Advantage to individuals who meet certain chronic illness conditions.”

Non–primarily health-related services may include meals, transportation, and pest control, for example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services notes.

Also, within the shared-savings program of traditional Medicare, if an accountable care organization is providing quality care under the cost target and is reaping the savings, “you could use those bonuses to do things that you couldn’t do under the normal Medicare fee schedule like address social needs,” Dr. Bleser said.

Medicaid, he said, offers the most opportunities to address social needs through the health system. One policy mechanism within Medicaid is the Section 1115 Waiver, where states can propose to provide new services as long as they comply with the core rules of Medicaid and meet certain qualifications.
 

Avoiding checking boxes with no benefit to patients

Ms. Clapp and colleagues noted that whether health care professionals agree that social needs can or should be addressed in primary care, CMS will mandate social needs screening and reporting for all hospitalized adults starting in 2024. Additionally, the Joint Commission will require health care systems to gauge social needs and report on resources.

“We need to ensure that these mandates do not become administrative checkboxes that frustrate clinical staff and ratchet up health care costs with no benefit to patients,” they wrote.

Dr. Basu reported receiving personal fees from the University of California, Healthright360, Waymark and Collective Health outside the submitted work; he has a patent issued for a multimodel member outreach system; and a patent pending for operationalizing predicted changes in risk based on interventions. A coauthor reported grants from the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, and personal fees from several nonprofit organizations outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported personal fees from ZealCare outside the submitted work.

The costs of providing evidence-based interventions in primary care to address social needs far exceed current federal funding streams, say the authors of a new analysis.

A microsimulation analysis by Sanjay Basu, MD, PhD, with Clinical Product Development, Waymark Care, San Francisco, and colleagues found that, as primary care practices are being asked to screen for social needs, the cost of providing evidence-based interventions for these needs averaged $60 per member/person per month (PMPM) (95% confidence interval, $55-$65).

However, less than half ($27) of the $60 cost had existing federal financing in place to pay for it. Of the $60, $5 was for screening and referral.

The study results were published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers looked at key social needs areas and found major gaps between what interventions cost and what’s covered by federal payers. They demonstrate the gaps in four key areas. Many people in the analysis have more than one need:

• Food insecurity: Cost was $23 PMPM and the proportion borne by existing federal payers was 61.6%.
• Housing insecurity: Cost was $3 PMPM; proportion borne by federal payers was 45.6%.
• Transportation insecurity: Cost was $0.1 PMPM; proportion borne by federal payers was 27.8%.
• Community-based care coordination: Cost was $0.6 PMPM; proportion borne by federal payers is 6.4%.

Gaps varied by type of center

Primary care practices were grouped into federally qualified health centers; non-FQHC urban practices in high-poverty areas; non-FQHC rural practices in high-poverty areas; and practices in lower-poverty areas. Gaps varied among the groups.

While disproportionate funding was available to populations seen at FQHCs, populations seen at non-FQHC practices in high-poverty areas had larger funding gaps.

The study population consisted of 19,225 patients seen in primary care practices; data on social needs were pulled from the National Center for Health Statistics from 2015 to 2018.

Dr. Basu said in an interview with the journal’s deputy editor, Mitchell Katz, MD, that new sustainable revenue streams need to be identified to close the gap. Primary care physicians should not be charged with tasks such as researching the best housing programs and food benefits.

“I can’t imagine fitting this into my primary care appointments,” he said.
 

Is primary care the best setting for addressing these needs?

In an accompanying comment, Jenifer Clapp, MPA, with the Office of Ambulatory Care and Population Health, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, and colleagues wrote that the study raises the question of whether the health care setting is the right place for addressing social needs. Some aspects have to be addressed in health care, such as asking about the home environment for a patient with environmentally triggered asthma.

“But how involved should health care professionals be in identifying needs unrelated to illness and solving those needs?” Ms. Clapp and colleagues asked.

They wrote that the health care sector in the United States must address these needs because in the United States, unlike in many European countries, “there is an insufficient social service sector to address the basic human needs of children and working-age adults.”
 

Eligible but not enrolled

Importantly, both the study authors and editorialists pointed out, in many cases, intervening doesn’t mean paying for the social services, but helping patients enroll in the services for which they already qualify.

The study authors wrote that among people who had food and housing needs, most met the criteria for federally funded programs, but had low enrollment for reasons including inadequate program capacity.

For example, 78% of people with housing needs were eligible for federal programs but only 24% were enrolled, and 95.6% of people with food needs were eligible for programs but only 70.2% were enrolled in programs like the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program and Women, Infants and Children.

Commentary coauthor Nichola Davis, MD, also with NYC Health + Hospitals, said one thing they’ve done at NYC Health + Hospitals is partner with community-based organizations that provide food navigators so when patients screen positive for food insecurity they can then be seen by a food navigator to pinpoint appropriate programs.

The referral for those who indicate food insecurity is automatically generated by the electronic health system and appears on the after-visit summary.

“At the bare minimum, the patient would leave with a list of resources,” Dr. Davis said.
 

One place primary care providers can make a difference

Dr. Katz said that the $60 cost per person is much lower than that for a service such as an MRI.

“We should be able to achieve that,” he said.

Will Bleser, PhD, MSPH, assistant research director of health care transformation for social needs and health equity at the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Washington, said it’s exciting to see the per-person cost for social needs quantified.

He pointed to existing revenue options that have been underutilized.

Through Medicare, he noted, if you are part of a Medicare Advantage plan, there is a program implemented in 2020 called Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill. “That authorizes Medicare Advantage plans to offer non–primarily health-related services through Medicare Advantage to individuals who meet certain chronic illness conditions.”

Non–primarily health-related services may include meals, transportation, and pest control, for example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services notes.

Also, within the shared-savings program of traditional Medicare, if an accountable care organization is providing quality care under the cost target and is reaping the savings, “you could use those bonuses to do things that you couldn’t do under the normal Medicare fee schedule like address social needs,” Dr. Bleser said.

Medicaid, he said, offers the most opportunities to address social needs through the health system. One policy mechanism within Medicaid is the Section 1115 Waiver, where states can propose to provide new services as long as they comply with the core rules of Medicaid and meet certain qualifications.
 

Avoiding checking boxes with no benefit to patients

Ms. Clapp and colleagues noted that whether health care professionals agree that social needs can or should be addressed in primary care, CMS will mandate social needs screening and reporting for all hospitalized adults starting in 2024. Additionally, the Joint Commission will require health care systems to gauge social needs and report on resources.

“We need to ensure that these mandates do not become administrative checkboxes that frustrate clinical staff and ratchet up health care costs with no benefit to patients,” they wrote.

Dr. Basu reported receiving personal fees from the University of California, Healthright360, Waymark and Collective Health outside the submitted work; he has a patent issued for a multimodel member outreach system; and a patent pending for operationalizing predicted changes in risk based on interventions. A coauthor reported grants from the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, and personal fees from several nonprofit organizations outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported personal fees from ZealCare outside the submitted work.

The costs of providing evidence-based interventions in primary care to address social needs far exceed current federal funding streams, say the authors of a new analysis.

A microsimulation analysis by Sanjay Basu, MD, PhD, with Clinical Product Development, Waymark Care, San Francisco, and colleagues found that, as primary care practices are being asked to screen for social needs, the cost of providing evidence-based interventions for these needs averaged $60 per member/person per month (PMPM) (95% confidence interval, $55-$65).

However, less than half ($27) of the $60 cost had existing federal financing in place to pay for it. Of the $60, $5 was for screening and referral.

The study results were published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers looked at key social needs areas and found major gaps between what interventions cost and what’s covered by federal payers. They demonstrate the gaps in four key areas. Many people in the analysis have more than one need:

• Food insecurity: Cost was $23 PMPM and the proportion borne by existing federal payers was 61.6%.
• Housing insecurity: Cost was $3 PMPM; proportion borne by federal payers was 45.6%.
• Transportation insecurity: Cost was $0.1 PMPM; proportion borne by federal payers was 27.8%.
• Community-based care coordination: Cost was $0.6 PMPM; proportion borne by federal payers is 6.4%.

Gaps varied by type of center

Primary care practices were grouped into federally qualified health centers; non-FQHC urban practices in high-poverty areas; non-FQHC rural practices in high-poverty areas; and practices in lower-poverty areas. Gaps varied among the groups.

While disproportionate funding was available to populations seen at FQHCs, populations seen at non-FQHC practices in high-poverty areas had larger funding gaps.

The study population consisted of 19,225 patients seen in primary care practices; data on social needs were pulled from the National Center for Health Statistics from 2015 to 2018.

Dr. Basu said in an interview with the journal’s deputy editor, Mitchell Katz, MD, that new sustainable revenue streams need to be identified to close the gap. Primary care physicians should not be charged with tasks such as researching the best housing programs and food benefits.

“I can’t imagine fitting this into my primary care appointments,” he said.
 

Is primary care the best setting for addressing these needs?

In an accompanying comment, Jenifer Clapp, MPA, with the Office of Ambulatory Care and Population Health, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, and colleagues wrote that the study raises the question of whether the health care setting is the right place for addressing social needs. Some aspects have to be addressed in health care, such as asking about the home environment for a patient with environmentally triggered asthma.

“But how involved should health care professionals be in identifying needs unrelated to illness and solving those needs?” Ms. Clapp and colleagues asked.

They wrote that the health care sector in the United States must address these needs because in the United States, unlike in many European countries, “there is an insufficient social service sector to address the basic human needs of children and working-age adults.”
 

Eligible but not enrolled

Importantly, both the study authors and editorialists pointed out, in many cases, intervening doesn’t mean paying for the social services, but helping patients enroll in the services for which they already qualify.

The study authors wrote that among people who had food and housing needs, most met the criteria for federally funded programs, but had low enrollment for reasons including inadequate program capacity.

For example, 78% of people with housing needs were eligible for federal programs but only 24% were enrolled, and 95.6% of people with food needs were eligible for programs but only 70.2% were enrolled in programs like the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program and Women, Infants and Children.

Commentary coauthor Nichola Davis, MD, also with NYC Health + Hospitals, said one thing they’ve done at NYC Health + Hospitals is partner with community-based organizations that provide food navigators so when patients screen positive for food insecurity they can then be seen by a food navigator to pinpoint appropriate programs.

The referral for those who indicate food insecurity is automatically generated by the electronic health system and appears on the after-visit summary.

“At the bare minimum, the patient would leave with a list of resources,” Dr. Davis said.
 

One place primary care providers can make a difference

Dr. Katz said that the $60 cost per person is much lower than that for a service such as an MRI.

“We should be able to achieve that,” he said.

Will Bleser, PhD, MSPH, assistant research director of health care transformation for social needs and health equity at the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Washington, said it’s exciting to see the per-person cost for social needs quantified.

He pointed to existing revenue options that have been underutilized.

Through Medicare, he noted, if you are part of a Medicare Advantage plan, there is a program implemented in 2020 called Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill. “That authorizes Medicare Advantage plans to offer non–primarily health-related services through Medicare Advantage to individuals who meet certain chronic illness conditions.”

Non–primarily health-related services may include meals, transportation, and pest control, for example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services notes.

Also, within the shared-savings program of traditional Medicare, if an accountable care organization is providing quality care under the cost target and is reaping the savings, “you could use those bonuses to do things that you couldn’t do under the normal Medicare fee schedule like address social needs,” Dr. Bleser said.

Medicaid, he said, offers the most opportunities to address social needs through the health system. One policy mechanism within Medicaid is the Section 1115 Waiver, where states can propose to provide new services as long as they comply with the core rules of Medicaid and meet certain qualifications.
 

Avoiding checking boxes with no benefit to patients

Ms. Clapp and colleagues noted that whether health care professionals agree that social needs can or should be addressed in primary care, CMS will mandate social needs screening and reporting for all hospitalized adults starting in 2024. Additionally, the Joint Commission will require health care systems to gauge social needs and report on resources.

“We need to ensure that these mandates do not become administrative checkboxes that frustrate clinical staff and ratchet up health care costs with no benefit to patients,” they wrote.

Dr. Basu reported receiving personal fees from the University of California, Healthright360, Waymark and Collective Health outside the submitted work; he has a patent issued for a multimodel member outreach system; and a patent pending for operationalizing predicted changes in risk based on interventions. A coauthor reported grants from the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, and personal fees from several nonprofit organizations outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported personal fees from ZealCare outside the submitted work.

More than 600,000 Americans have lost Medicaid coverage since pandemic protections ended on April 1. And a KFF Health News analysis of state data shows the vast majority were removed from state rolls for not completing paperwork.

Under normal circumstances, states review their Medicaid enrollment lists regularly to ensure every recipient qualifies for coverage. But because of a nationwide pause in those reviews during the pandemic, the health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans kept people covered even if they no longer qualified.

Now, in what’s known as the Medicaid unwinding, states are combing through rolls and deciding who stays and who goes. People who are no longer eligible or don’t complete paperwork in time will be dropped.

The overwhelming majority of people who have lost coverage in most states were dropped because of technicalities, not because state officials determined they no longer meet Medicaid income limits. Four out of every five people dropped so far either never returned the paperwork or omitted required documents, according to a KFF Health News analysis of data from 11 states that provided details on recent cancellations. Now, lawmakers and advocates are expressing alarm over the volume of people losing coverage and, in some states, calling to pause the process.

KFF Health News sought data from the 19 states that started cancellations by May 1. Based on records from 14 states that provided detailed numbers, either in response to a public records request or by posting online, 36% of people whose eligibility was reviewed have been disenrolled.

In Indiana, 53,000 residents lost coverage in the first month of the unwinding, 89% for procedural reasons like not returning renewal forms. State Rep. Ed Clere, a Republican, expressed dismay at those “staggering numbers” in a May 24 Medicaid advisory group meeting, repeatedly questioning state officials about forms mailed to out-of-date addresses and urging them to give people more than 2 weeks’ notice before canceling their coverage.

Rep. Clere warned that the cancellations set in motion an avoidable revolving door. Some people dropped from Medicaid will have to forgo filling prescriptions and cancel doctor visits because they can’t afford care. Months down the line, after untreated chronic illnesses spiral out of control, they’ll end up in the emergency room where social workers will need to again help them join the program, he said.

Before the unwinding, more than one in four Americans – 93 million – were covered by Medicaid or CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to KFF Health News’ analysis of the latest enrollment data. Half of all kids are covered by the programs.

About 15 million people will be dropped over the next year as states review participants’ eligibility in monthly tranches.

Most people will find health coverage through new jobs or qualify for subsidized plans through the Affordable Care Act. But millions of others, including many children, will become uninsured and unable to afford basic prescriptions or preventive care. The uninsured rate among those under 65 is projected to rise from a historical low of 8.3% today to 9.3% next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Because each state is handling the unwinding differently, the share of enrollees dropped in the first weeks varies widely.

Several states are first reviewing people officials believe are no longer eligible or who haven’t recently used their insurance. High cancellation rates in those states should level out as the agencies move on to people who likely still qualify.

In Utah, nearly 56% of people included in early reviews were dropped. In New Hampshire, 44% received cancellation letters within the first 2 months – almost all for procedural reasons, like not returning paperwork.

But New Hampshire officials found that thousands of people who didn’t fill out the forms indeed earn too much to qualify, according to Henry Lipman, the state’s Medicaid director. They would have been denied anyway. Even so, more people than he expected are not returning renewal forms. “That tells us that we need to change up our strategy,” said Mr. Lipman.

In other states, like Virginia and Nebraska, which aren’t prioritizing renewals by likely eligibility, about 90% have been renewed.

Because of the 3-year pause in renewals, many people on Medicaid have never been through the process or aren’t aware they may need to fill out long verification forms, as a recent KFF poll found. Some people moved and didn’t update their contact information.

And while agencies are required to assist enrollees who don’t speak English well, many are sending the forms in only a few common languages.

Tens of thousands of children are losing coverage, as researchers have warned, even though some may still qualify for Medicaid or CHIP. In its first month of reviews, South Dakota ended coverage for 10% of all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in the state. More than half of them were children. In Arkansas, about 40% were kids.

Many parents don’t know that limits on household income are significantly higher for children than adults. Parents should fill out renewal forms even if they don’t qualify themselves, said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, Washington.

New Hampshire has moved most families with children to the end of the review process. Mr. Lipman said his biggest worry is that a child will end up uninsured. Florida also planned to push kids with serious health conditions and other vulnerable groups to the end of the review line.

But according to Miriam Harmatz, advocacy director and founder of the Florida Health Justice Project, state officials sent cancellation letters to several clients with disabled children who probably still qualify. She’s helping those families appeal.

Nearly 250,000 Floridians reviewed in the first month of the unwinding lost coverage, 82% of them for reasons like incomplete paperwork, the state reported to federal authorities. House Democrats from the state petitioned Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to pause the unwinding.

Advocacy coalitions in both Florida and Arkansas also have called for investigations into the review process and a pause on cancellations.

The state is contacting enrollees by phone, email, and text, and continues to process late applications, said Tori Cuddy, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families. Ms. Cuddy did not respond to questions about issues raised in the petitions.

Federal officials are investigating those complaints and any other problems that emerge, said Dan Tsai, director of the Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. “If we find that the rules are not being followed, we will take action.”

His agency has directed states to automatically reenroll residents using data from other government programs like unemployment and food assistance when possible. Anyone who can’t be approved through that process must act quickly.

“For the past 3 years, people have been told to ignore the mail around this, that the renewal was not going to lead to a termination.” Suddenly that mail matters, he said.

Federal law requires states to tell people why they’re losing Medicaid coverage and how to appeal the decision.

Ms. Harmatz said some cancellation notices in Florida are vague and could violate due process rules. Letters that she’s seen say “your Medicaid for this period is ending” rather than providing a specific reason for disenrollment, like having too high an income or incomplete paperwork.
If a person requests a hearing before their cancellation takes effect, they can stay covered during the appeals process. Even after being disenrolled, many still have a 90-day window to restore coverage.

In New Hampshire, 13% of people deemed ineligible in the first month have asked for extra time to provide the necessary records. “If you’re eligible for Medicaid, we don’t want you to lose it,” said Mr. Lipman.

Rep. Clere pushed Indiana’s Medicaid officials during the May meeting to immediately make changes to avoid people unnecessarily becoming uninsured. One official responded that they’ll learn and improve over time.

“I’m just concerned that we’re going to be ‘learning’ as a result of people losing coverage,” Rep. Clere replied. “So I don’t want to learn at their expense.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

More than 600,000 Americans have lost Medicaid coverage since pandemic protections ended on April 1. And a KFF Health News analysis of state data shows the vast majority were removed from state rolls for not completing paperwork.

Under normal circumstances, states review their Medicaid enrollment lists regularly to ensure every recipient qualifies for coverage. But because of a nationwide pause in those reviews during the pandemic, the health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans kept people covered even if they no longer qualified.

Now, in what’s known as the Medicaid unwinding, states are combing through rolls and deciding who stays and who goes. People who are no longer eligible or don’t complete paperwork in time will be dropped.

The overwhelming majority of people who have lost coverage in most states were dropped because of technicalities, not because state officials determined they no longer meet Medicaid income limits. Four out of every five people dropped so far either never returned the paperwork or omitted required documents, according to a KFF Health News analysis of data from 11 states that provided details on recent cancellations. Now, lawmakers and advocates are expressing alarm over the volume of people losing coverage and, in some states, calling to pause the process.

KFF Health News sought data from the 19 states that started cancellations by May 1. Based on records from 14 states that provided detailed numbers, either in response to a public records request or by posting online, 36% of people whose eligibility was reviewed have been disenrolled.

In Indiana, 53,000 residents lost coverage in the first month of the unwinding, 89% for procedural reasons like not returning renewal forms. State Rep. Ed Clere, a Republican, expressed dismay at those “staggering numbers” in a May 24 Medicaid advisory group meeting, repeatedly questioning state officials about forms mailed to out-of-date addresses and urging them to give people more than 2 weeks’ notice before canceling their coverage.

Rep. Clere warned that the cancellations set in motion an avoidable revolving door. Some people dropped from Medicaid will have to forgo filling prescriptions and cancel doctor visits because they can’t afford care. Months down the line, after untreated chronic illnesses spiral out of control, they’ll end up in the emergency room where social workers will need to again help them join the program, he said.

Before the unwinding, more than one in four Americans – 93 million – were covered by Medicaid or CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to KFF Health News’ analysis of the latest enrollment data. Half of all kids are covered by the programs.

About 15 million people will be dropped over the next year as states review participants’ eligibility in monthly tranches.

Most people will find health coverage through new jobs or qualify for subsidized plans through the Affordable Care Act. But millions of others, including many children, will become uninsured and unable to afford basic prescriptions or preventive care. The uninsured rate among those under 65 is projected to rise from a historical low of 8.3% today to 9.3% next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Because each state is handling the unwinding differently, the share of enrollees dropped in the first weeks varies widely.

Several states are first reviewing people officials believe are no longer eligible or who haven’t recently used their insurance. High cancellation rates in those states should level out as the agencies move on to people who likely still qualify.

In Utah, nearly 56% of people included in early reviews were dropped. In New Hampshire, 44% received cancellation letters within the first 2 months – almost all for procedural reasons, like not returning paperwork.

But New Hampshire officials found that thousands of people who didn’t fill out the forms indeed earn too much to qualify, according to Henry Lipman, the state’s Medicaid director. They would have been denied anyway. Even so, more people than he expected are not returning renewal forms. “That tells us that we need to change up our strategy,” said Mr. Lipman.

In other states, like Virginia and Nebraska, which aren’t prioritizing renewals by likely eligibility, about 90% have been renewed.

Because of the 3-year pause in renewals, many people on Medicaid have never been through the process or aren’t aware they may need to fill out long verification forms, as a recent KFF poll found. Some people moved and didn’t update their contact information.

And while agencies are required to assist enrollees who don’t speak English well, many are sending the forms in only a few common languages.

Tens of thousands of children are losing coverage, as researchers have warned, even though some may still qualify for Medicaid or CHIP. In its first month of reviews, South Dakota ended coverage for 10% of all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in the state. More than half of them were children. In Arkansas, about 40% were kids.

Many parents don’t know that limits on household income are significantly higher for children than adults. Parents should fill out renewal forms even if they don’t qualify themselves, said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, Washington.

New Hampshire has moved most families with children to the end of the review process. Mr. Lipman said his biggest worry is that a child will end up uninsured. Florida also planned to push kids with serious health conditions and other vulnerable groups to the end of the review line.

But according to Miriam Harmatz, advocacy director and founder of the Florida Health Justice Project, state officials sent cancellation letters to several clients with disabled children who probably still qualify. She’s helping those families appeal.

Nearly 250,000 Floridians reviewed in the first month of the unwinding lost coverage, 82% of them for reasons like incomplete paperwork, the state reported to federal authorities. House Democrats from the state petitioned Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to pause the unwinding.

Advocacy coalitions in both Florida and Arkansas also have called for investigations into the review process and a pause on cancellations.

The state is contacting enrollees by phone, email, and text, and continues to process late applications, said Tori Cuddy, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families. Ms. Cuddy did not respond to questions about issues raised in the petitions.

Federal officials are investigating those complaints and any other problems that emerge, said Dan Tsai, director of the Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. “If we find that the rules are not being followed, we will take action.”

His agency has directed states to automatically reenroll residents using data from other government programs like unemployment and food assistance when possible. Anyone who can’t be approved through that process must act quickly.

“For the past 3 years, people have been told to ignore the mail around this, that the renewal was not going to lead to a termination.” Suddenly that mail matters, he said.

Federal law requires states to tell people why they’re losing Medicaid coverage and how to appeal the decision.

Ms. Harmatz said some cancellation notices in Florida are vague and could violate due process rules. Letters that she’s seen say “your Medicaid for this period is ending” rather than providing a specific reason for disenrollment, like having too high an income or incomplete paperwork.
If a person requests a hearing before their cancellation takes effect, they can stay covered during the appeals process. Even after being disenrolled, many still have a 90-day window to restore coverage.

In New Hampshire, 13% of people deemed ineligible in the first month have asked for extra time to provide the necessary records. “If you’re eligible for Medicaid, we don’t want you to lose it,” said Mr. Lipman.

Rep. Clere pushed Indiana’s Medicaid officials during the May meeting to immediately make changes to avoid people unnecessarily becoming uninsured. One official responded that they’ll learn and improve over time.

“I’m just concerned that we’re going to be ‘learning’ as a result of people losing coverage,” Rep. Clere replied. “So I don’t want to learn at their expense.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

More than 600,000 Americans have lost Medicaid coverage since pandemic protections ended on April 1. And a KFF Health News analysis of state data shows the vast majority were removed from state rolls for not completing paperwork.

Under normal circumstances, states review their Medicaid enrollment lists regularly to ensure every recipient qualifies for coverage. But because of a nationwide pause in those reviews during the pandemic, the health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans kept people covered even if they no longer qualified.

Now, in what’s known as the Medicaid unwinding, states are combing through rolls and deciding who stays and who goes. People who are no longer eligible or don’t complete paperwork in time will be dropped.

The overwhelming majority of people who have lost coverage in most states were dropped because of technicalities, not because state officials determined they no longer meet Medicaid income limits. Four out of every five people dropped so far either never returned the paperwork or omitted required documents, according to a KFF Health News analysis of data from 11 states that provided details on recent cancellations. Now, lawmakers and advocates are expressing alarm over the volume of people losing coverage and, in some states, calling to pause the process.

KFF Health News sought data from the 19 states that started cancellations by May 1. Based on records from 14 states that provided detailed numbers, either in response to a public records request or by posting online, 36% of people whose eligibility was reviewed have been disenrolled.

In Indiana, 53,000 residents lost coverage in the first month of the unwinding, 89% for procedural reasons like not returning renewal forms. State Rep. Ed Clere, a Republican, expressed dismay at those “staggering numbers” in a May 24 Medicaid advisory group meeting, repeatedly questioning state officials about forms mailed to out-of-date addresses and urging them to give people more than 2 weeks’ notice before canceling their coverage.

Rep. Clere warned that the cancellations set in motion an avoidable revolving door. Some people dropped from Medicaid will have to forgo filling prescriptions and cancel doctor visits because they can’t afford care. Months down the line, after untreated chronic illnesses spiral out of control, they’ll end up in the emergency room where social workers will need to again help them join the program, he said.

Before the unwinding, more than one in four Americans – 93 million – were covered by Medicaid or CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to KFF Health News’ analysis of the latest enrollment data. Half of all kids are covered by the programs.

About 15 million people will be dropped over the next year as states review participants’ eligibility in monthly tranches.

Most people will find health coverage through new jobs or qualify for subsidized plans through the Affordable Care Act. But millions of others, including many children, will become uninsured and unable to afford basic prescriptions or preventive care. The uninsured rate among those under 65 is projected to rise from a historical low of 8.3% today to 9.3% next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Because each state is handling the unwinding differently, the share of enrollees dropped in the first weeks varies widely.

Several states are first reviewing people officials believe are no longer eligible or who haven’t recently used their insurance. High cancellation rates in those states should level out as the agencies move on to people who likely still qualify.

In Utah, nearly 56% of people included in early reviews were dropped. In New Hampshire, 44% received cancellation letters within the first 2 months – almost all for procedural reasons, like not returning paperwork.

But New Hampshire officials found that thousands of people who didn’t fill out the forms indeed earn too much to qualify, according to Henry Lipman, the state’s Medicaid director. They would have been denied anyway. Even so, more people than he expected are not returning renewal forms. “That tells us that we need to change up our strategy,” said Mr. Lipman.

In other states, like Virginia and Nebraska, which aren’t prioritizing renewals by likely eligibility, about 90% have been renewed.

Because of the 3-year pause in renewals, many people on Medicaid have never been through the process or aren’t aware they may need to fill out long verification forms, as a recent KFF poll found. Some people moved and didn’t update their contact information.

And while agencies are required to assist enrollees who don’t speak English well, many are sending the forms in only a few common languages.

Tens of thousands of children are losing coverage, as researchers have warned, even though some may still qualify for Medicaid or CHIP. In its first month of reviews, South Dakota ended coverage for 10% of all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in the state. More than half of them were children. In Arkansas, about 40% were kids.

Many parents don’t know that limits on household income are significantly higher for children than adults. Parents should fill out renewal forms even if they don’t qualify themselves, said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, Washington.

New Hampshire has moved most families with children to the end of the review process. Mr. Lipman said his biggest worry is that a child will end up uninsured. Florida also planned to push kids with serious health conditions and other vulnerable groups to the end of the review line.

But according to Miriam Harmatz, advocacy director and founder of the Florida Health Justice Project, state officials sent cancellation letters to several clients with disabled children who probably still qualify. She’s helping those families appeal.

Nearly 250,000 Floridians reviewed in the first month of the unwinding lost coverage, 82% of them for reasons like incomplete paperwork, the state reported to federal authorities. House Democrats from the state petitioned Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to pause the unwinding.

Advocacy coalitions in both Florida and Arkansas also have called for investigations into the review process and a pause on cancellations.

The state is contacting enrollees by phone, email, and text, and continues to process late applications, said Tori Cuddy, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families. Ms. Cuddy did not respond to questions about issues raised in the petitions.

Federal officials are investigating those complaints and any other problems that emerge, said Dan Tsai, director of the Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. “If we find that the rules are not being followed, we will take action.”

His agency has directed states to automatically reenroll residents using data from other government programs like unemployment and food assistance when possible. Anyone who can’t be approved through that process must act quickly.

“For the past 3 years, people have been told to ignore the mail around this, that the renewal was not going to lead to a termination.” Suddenly that mail matters, he said.

Federal law requires states to tell people why they’re losing Medicaid coverage and how to appeal the decision.

Ms. Harmatz said some cancellation notices in Florida are vague and could violate due process rules. Letters that she’s seen say “your Medicaid for this period is ending” rather than providing a specific reason for disenrollment, like having too high an income or incomplete paperwork.
If a person requests a hearing before their cancellation takes effect, they can stay covered during the appeals process. Even after being disenrolled, many still have a 90-day window to restore coverage.

In New Hampshire, 13% of people deemed ineligible in the first month have asked for extra time to provide the necessary records. “If you’re eligible for Medicaid, we don’t want you to lose it,” said Mr. Lipman.

Rep. Clere pushed Indiana’s Medicaid officials during the May meeting to immediately make changes to avoid people unnecessarily becoming uninsured. One official responded that they’ll learn and improve over time.

“I’m just concerned that we’re going to be ‘learning’ as a result of people losing coverage,” Rep. Clere replied. “So I don’t want to learn at their expense.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Taking a daily flavanol supplement improves hippocampal-dependent memory in older adults who have a relatively poor diet, results of a large new study suggest.

There’s increasing evidence that certain nutrients are important for the aging body and brain, study investigator Scott Small, MD, the Boris and Rose Katz Professor of Neurology, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, told this news organization.

“With this new study, I think we can begin to say flavanols might be the first one that really is a nutrient for the aging brain.”

These findings, said Dr. Small, represent “the beginning of a new era” that will eventually lead to formal recommendations” related to ideal intake of flavanols to reduce cognitive aging.

The findings were published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
 

Better cognitive aging

Cognitive aging refers to the decline in cognitive abilities that are not thought to be caused by neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Cognitive aging targets two areas of the brain: the hippocampus, which is related to memory function, and the prefrontal cortex, which is related to attention and executive function.

Previous research has linked flavanols, which are found in foods like apples, pears, berries, and cocoa beans, to improved cognitive aging. The evidence shows that consuming these nutrients might be associated with the hippocampal-dependent memory component of cognitive aging.

The new study, known as COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study-Web (COSMOS-Web), included 3,562 generally healthy men and women, mean age 71 years, who were mostly well-educated and non-Hispanic/non-Latinx White individuals.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral flavanol-containing cocoa extract (500 mg of cocoa flavanols, including 80 mg of epicatechin) or a placebo daily.

The primary endpoint was hippocampal-dependent memory at year 1 as assessed with the ModRey, a neuropsychological test designed to measure hippocampal function.

Results showed participants in both groups had a typical learning (practice) effect, with similar improvements (d = 0.025; P = .42).

Researchers used other tests to measure cognition: the Color/Directional Flanker Task, a measure of prefrontal cortex function, and the ModBent, a measure that’s sensitive to dentate gyrus function. The flavanol intervention did not affect ModBent results or performance on the Flanker test after 1 year.

However, it was a different story for those with a poor diet at baseline. Researchers stratified participants into tertiles on the basis of diet quality as measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) scores. Those in the lowest tertile had poorer baseline hippocampal-dependent memory performance but not memory related to the prefrontal cortex.

The flavanol intervention improved performance on the ModRey test, compared with placebo in participants in the low HEI tertile (overall effect: d = 0.086; P = .011) but not among those with a medium or high HEI at baseline.

“We confirmed that the flavanol intervention only benefits people who are relatively deficient at baseline,” said Dr. Small.

The correlation with hippocampal-dependent memory was confirmed in a subset of 1,361 study participants who provided a urine sample. Researchers measured urinary 5-(3′,4′-dihydroxyphenyl)-gamma-valerolactone metabolite (gVLM) concentrations, a validated biomarker of flavanol consumption.

After stratifying these results into tertiles, researchers found performance on the ModRey was significantly improved with the dietary flavanol intervention (overall effect: d = 0.141; P = .006) in the lowest gVLM tertile.
 

Memory restored

When participants in the lowest tertile consumed the supplement, “their flavanol levels went back to normal, and when that happened, their memory was restored,” said Dr. Small.

It appears that there is a sort of ceiling effect to the flavanol benefits. “It seems what you need to do is normalize your flavanol levels; if you go above normal, there was no evidence that your memory keeps on getting better,” said Dr. Small.

The study included only older adults, so it’s unclear what the impact of flavanol supplementation is in younger adults. But cognitive aging “begins its slippery side” in the 40s, said Dr. Small. “If this is truly a nutrient that is taken to prevent that slide from happening, it might be beneficial to start in our 40s.”

He recognized that the effect size is not large but said this is “very dependent” on baseline factors and most study participants had a rather healthy diet. “None of our participants were really highly deficient” in flavanols, he said.

“To see a stronger effect size, we need to do another study where we recruit people who are very low, truly deficient, in flavanols, and then see what happens.”

Showing that flavanols are linked to the hippocampal and not to the prefrontal component of cognitive aging “speaks to the mechanism,” said Dr. Small.

Though the exact mechanism linking flavanols with enhanced memory isn’t clear, there are some clues; for example, research suggests cognitive aging affects the dentate gyrus, a subregion of the hippocampus.

The flavanol supplements were well tolerated. “I can say with close to certainty that this is very safe,” said Dr. Small, adding the flavanols have now been used in numerous studies.

The findings suggest flavanol consumption might be part of future dietary guidelines. “I suspect that once there is sufficient evidence, flavanols will be part of the dietary recommendations for healthy aging,” said Dr. Small.
 

A word of caution

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations, Alzheimer’s Association, said that though science suggests a balanced diet is good for overall brain health, no single food, beverage, ingredient, vitamin, or supplement has yet been proven to prevent dementia, treat or cure Alzheimer’s, or benefit cognitive function or brain health.

Experts agree the best source of vitamins and other nutrients is from whole foods as part of a balanced diet. “We recognize that, for a variety of reasons, this may not always be possible,” said Dr. Snyder.

However, she noted, dietary supplements are not subject to the same rigorous review and regulation process as medications.

“The Alzheimer’s Association strongly encourages individuals to have conversations with their physicians about all medications and dietary supplements they are currently taking or interested in starting.” 

COSMOS is supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars, company engaged in flavanol research and flavanol-related commercial activities, which included infrastructure support and the donation of study pills and packaging. Small reports receiving an unrestricted research grant from Mars.

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

Taking a daily flavanol supplement improves hippocampal-dependent memory in older adults who have a relatively poor diet, results of a large new study suggest.

There’s increasing evidence that certain nutrients are important for the aging body and brain, study investigator Scott Small, MD, the Boris and Rose Katz Professor of Neurology, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, told this news organization.

“With this new study, I think we can begin to say flavanols might be the first one that really is a nutrient for the aging brain.”

These findings, said Dr. Small, represent “the beginning of a new era” that will eventually lead to formal recommendations” related to ideal intake of flavanols to reduce cognitive aging.

The findings were published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
 

Better cognitive aging

Cognitive aging refers to the decline in cognitive abilities that are not thought to be caused by neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Cognitive aging targets two areas of the brain: the hippocampus, which is related to memory function, and the prefrontal cortex, which is related to attention and executive function.

Previous research has linked flavanols, which are found in foods like apples, pears, berries, and cocoa beans, to improved cognitive aging. The evidence shows that consuming these nutrients might be associated with the hippocampal-dependent memory component of cognitive aging.

The new study, known as COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study-Web (COSMOS-Web), included 3,562 generally healthy men and women, mean age 71 years, who were mostly well-educated and non-Hispanic/non-Latinx White individuals.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral flavanol-containing cocoa extract (500 mg of cocoa flavanols, including 80 mg of epicatechin) or a placebo daily.

The primary endpoint was hippocampal-dependent memory at year 1 as assessed with the ModRey, a neuropsychological test designed to measure hippocampal function.

Results showed participants in both groups had a typical learning (practice) effect, with similar improvements (d = 0.025; P = .42).

Researchers used other tests to measure cognition: the Color/Directional Flanker Task, a measure of prefrontal cortex function, and the ModBent, a measure that’s sensitive to dentate gyrus function. The flavanol intervention did not affect ModBent results or performance on the Flanker test after 1 year.

However, it was a different story for those with a poor diet at baseline. Researchers stratified participants into tertiles on the basis of diet quality as measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) scores. Those in the lowest tertile had poorer baseline hippocampal-dependent memory performance but not memory related to the prefrontal cortex.

The flavanol intervention improved performance on the ModRey test, compared with placebo in participants in the low HEI tertile (overall effect: d = 0.086; P = .011) but not among those with a medium or high HEI at baseline.

“We confirmed that the flavanol intervention only benefits people who are relatively deficient at baseline,” said Dr. Small.

The correlation with hippocampal-dependent memory was confirmed in a subset of 1,361 study participants who provided a urine sample. Researchers measured urinary 5-(3′,4′-dihydroxyphenyl)-gamma-valerolactone metabolite (gVLM) concentrations, a validated biomarker of flavanol consumption.

After stratifying these results into tertiles, researchers found performance on the ModRey was significantly improved with the dietary flavanol intervention (overall effect: d = 0.141; P = .006) in the lowest gVLM tertile.
 

Memory restored

When participants in the lowest tertile consumed the supplement, “their flavanol levels went back to normal, and when that happened, their memory was restored,” said Dr. Small.

It appears that there is a sort of ceiling effect to the flavanol benefits. “It seems what you need to do is normalize your flavanol levels; if you go above normal, there was no evidence that your memory keeps on getting better,” said Dr. Small.

The study included only older adults, so it’s unclear what the impact of flavanol supplementation is in younger adults. But cognitive aging “begins its slippery side” in the 40s, said Dr. Small. “If this is truly a nutrient that is taken to prevent that slide from happening, it might be beneficial to start in our 40s.”

He recognized that the effect size is not large but said this is “very dependent” on baseline factors and most study participants had a rather healthy diet. “None of our participants were really highly deficient” in flavanols, he said.

“To see a stronger effect size, we need to do another study where we recruit people who are very low, truly deficient, in flavanols, and then see what happens.”

Showing that flavanols are linked to the hippocampal and not to the prefrontal component of cognitive aging “speaks to the mechanism,” said Dr. Small.

Though the exact mechanism linking flavanols with enhanced memory isn’t clear, there are some clues; for example, research suggests cognitive aging affects the dentate gyrus, a subregion of the hippocampus.

The flavanol supplements were well tolerated. “I can say with close to certainty that this is very safe,” said Dr. Small, adding the flavanols have now been used in numerous studies.

The findings suggest flavanol consumption might be part of future dietary guidelines. “I suspect that once there is sufficient evidence, flavanols will be part of the dietary recommendations for healthy aging,” said Dr. Small.
 

A word of caution

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations, Alzheimer’s Association, said that though science suggests a balanced diet is good for overall brain health, no single food, beverage, ingredient, vitamin, or supplement has yet been proven to prevent dementia, treat or cure Alzheimer’s, or benefit cognitive function or brain health.

Experts agree the best source of vitamins and other nutrients is from whole foods as part of a balanced diet. “We recognize that, for a variety of reasons, this may not always be possible,” said Dr. Snyder.

However, she noted, dietary supplements are not subject to the same rigorous review and regulation process as medications.

“The Alzheimer’s Association strongly encourages individuals to have conversations with their physicians about all medications and dietary supplements they are currently taking or interested in starting.” 

COSMOS is supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars, company engaged in flavanol research and flavanol-related commercial activities, which included infrastructure support and the donation of study pills and packaging. Small reports receiving an unrestricted research grant from Mars.

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

Taking a daily flavanol supplement improves hippocampal-dependent memory in older adults who have a relatively poor diet, results of a large new study suggest.

There’s increasing evidence that certain nutrients are important for the aging body and brain, study investigator Scott Small, MD, the Boris and Rose Katz Professor of Neurology, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, told this news organization.

“With this new study, I think we can begin to say flavanols might be the first one that really is a nutrient for the aging brain.”

These findings, said Dr. Small, represent “the beginning of a new era” that will eventually lead to formal recommendations” related to ideal intake of flavanols to reduce cognitive aging.

The findings were published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
 

Better cognitive aging

Cognitive aging refers to the decline in cognitive abilities that are not thought to be caused by neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Cognitive aging targets two areas of the brain: the hippocampus, which is related to memory function, and the prefrontal cortex, which is related to attention and executive function.

Previous research has linked flavanols, which are found in foods like apples, pears, berries, and cocoa beans, to improved cognitive aging. The evidence shows that consuming these nutrients might be associated with the hippocampal-dependent memory component of cognitive aging.

The new study, known as COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study-Web (COSMOS-Web), included 3,562 generally healthy men and women, mean age 71 years, who were mostly well-educated and non-Hispanic/non-Latinx White individuals.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral flavanol-containing cocoa extract (500 mg of cocoa flavanols, including 80 mg of epicatechin) or a placebo daily.

The primary endpoint was hippocampal-dependent memory at year 1 as assessed with the ModRey, a neuropsychological test designed to measure hippocampal function.

Results showed participants in both groups had a typical learning (practice) effect, with similar improvements (d = 0.025; P = .42).

Researchers used other tests to measure cognition: the Color/Directional Flanker Task, a measure of prefrontal cortex function, and the ModBent, a measure that’s sensitive to dentate gyrus function. The flavanol intervention did not affect ModBent results or performance on the Flanker test after 1 year.

However, it was a different story for those with a poor diet at baseline. Researchers stratified participants into tertiles on the basis of diet quality as measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) scores. Those in the lowest tertile had poorer baseline hippocampal-dependent memory performance but not memory related to the prefrontal cortex.

The flavanol intervention improved performance on the ModRey test, compared with placebo in participants in the low HEI tertile (overall effect: d = 0.086; P = .011) but not among those with a medium or high HEI at baseline.

“We confirmed that the flavanol intervention only benefits people who are relatively deficient at baseline,” said Dr. Small.

The correlation with hippocampal-dependent memory was confirmed in a subset of 1,361 study participants who provided a urine sample. Researchers measured urinary 5-(3′,4′-dihydroxyphenyl)-gamma-valerolactone metabolite (gVLM) concentrations, a validated biomarker of flavanol consumption.

After stratifying these results into tertiles, researchers found performance on the ModRey was significantly improved with the dietary flavanol intervention (overall effect: d = 0.141; P = .006) in the lowest gVLM tertile.
 

Memory restored

When participants in the lowest tertile consumed the supplement, “their flavanol levels went back to normal, and when that happened, their memory was restored,” said Dr. Small.

It appears that there is a sort of ceiling effect to the flavanol benefits. “It seems what you need to do is normalize your flavanol levels; if you go above normal, there was no evidence that your memory keeps on getting better,” said Dr. Small.

The study included only older adults, so it’s unclear what the impact of flavanol supplementation is in younger adults. But cognitive aging “begins its slippery side” in the 40s, said Dr. Small. “If this is truly a nutrient that is taken to prevent that slide from happening, it might be beneficial to start in our 40s.”

He recognized that the effect size is not large but said this is “very dependent” on baseline factors and most study participants had a rather healthy diet. “None of our participants were really highly deficient” in flavanols, he said.

“To see a stronger effect size, we need to do another study where we recruit people who are very low, truly deficient, in flavanols, and then see what happens.”

Showing that flavanols are linked to the hippocampal and not to the prefrontal component of cognitive aging “speaks to the mechanism,” said Dr. Small.

Though the exact mechanism linking flavanols with enhanced memory isn’t clear, there are some clues; for example, research suggests cognitive aging affects the dentate gyrus, a subregion of the hippocampus.

The flavanol supplements were well tolerated. “I can say with close to certainty that this is very safe,” said Dr. Small, adding the flavanols have now been used in numerous studies.

The findings suggest flavanol consumption might be part of future dietary guidelines. “I suspect that once there is sufficient evidence, flavanols will be part of the dietary recommendations for healthy aging,” said Dr. Small.
 

A word of caution

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations, Alzheimer’s Association, said that though science suggests a balanced diet is good for overall brain health, no single food, beverage, ingredient, vitamin, or supplement has yet been proven to prevent dementia, treat or cure Alzheimer’s, or benefit cognitive function or brain health.

Experts agree the best source of vitamins and other nutrients is from whole foods as part of a balanced diet. “We recognize that, for a variety of reasons, this may not always be possible,” said Dr. Snyder.

However, she noted, dietary supplements are not subject to the same rigorous review and regulation process as medications.

“The Alzheimer’s Association strongly encourages individuals to have conversations with their physicians about all medications and dietary supplements they are currently taking or interested in starting.” 

COSMOS is supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars, company engaged in flavanol research and flavanol-related commercial activities, which included infrastructure support and the donation of study pills and packaging. Small reports receiving an unrestricted research grant from Mars.

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

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) is more effective than fingolimod and natalizumab for patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), data indicate.

In a multicenter study that emulated pairwise trials, AHSCT was associated with a higher likelihood of disability improvement, compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio, 2.70).

Once the immune system is reconstituted, it can contribute to the healing process. AHSCT thus provides the possibility of improvement in MS. Disease-modifying therapies that require continued use, however, could inhibit that process.

“If you can stop the inflammation that’s driving this disease fairly early on, [patients] do have the capacity to repair,” said study author Mark Freedman, MD, a professor of neurology at the University of Ottawa. “And we start to see that especially in a treatment [like AHSCT] where you don’t maintain the hit on the immune system.”

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Pairwise analyses

Single-arm studies and an open-label, randomized trial have suggested that AHSCT has efficacy. The regimen is associated with a 0.3%-2.0% risk for mortality, but this risk has declined with better patient selection and clinical experience, according to the researchers. Comparative studies of AHSCT and DMTs are needed, but they are difficult to carry out, which is why the current team chose a propensity-score matched case–control design, according to lead author Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, head of the University of Melbourne’s Clinical Outcomes Research Unit.

The researchers examined data from 4,915 patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Of this population, 3.4% received AHSCT, 52.0% received fingolimod, 30.3% received natalizumab, and 14.2% received ocrelizumab. The proportion of women in the treatment groups ranged from 65% to 70%.

The researchers used pairwise matching to simulate the randomized, controlled trials comparing AHSCT with fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab. Patients were matched on the basis of sex, age, disability, relapse events at 12 and 24 months before baseline, time from first symptoms to baseline, the most effective previous DMT, and geographical region.

Compared with fingolimod, AHSCT was associated with fewer relapses (annualized relapse rate, 0.09 vs. 0.20; P < .001). This finding was confirmed by a reduced cumulative hazard of relapse (HR, 0.26).

Compared with natalizumab, AHSCT had only a modestly greater effect on annualized relapse rates (ARR, 0.08 vs. 0.10; P = .03), with a cumulative HR for relapses of 0.51.

There was no significant difference in the risk for relapse between treatment with AHSCT and with ocrelizumab (ARR, 0.09 vs. 0.06; P = .86), nor was the risk of cumulative relapses significantly different between these treatments.

Among patients included in the pairwise analyses who received AHSCT, 23.3% developed febrile neutropenia during mobilization, 11.3% developed serum sickness, and 8.8% were admitted to an intensive care unit. There were 82 serious adverse events among 58 patients after they were discharged post AHSCT treatment, including infections (59.8% of adverse events) that were primarily due to viral sources (41.5% of adverse events). There was one death (0.6%) due to veno-occlusive disease of the liver following busulfan exposure.

Some AHSCT protocols are stronger than others, and milder immune ablative measures are less likely to produce lasting effects. “We completely remove the old immune system and put in a brand new one,” said Dr. Freedman, referring to the practice at his center. “That’s a fairly horrendous procedure, and, not surprisingly, we’ve had a slight increase in the types of side effects, compared with other groups who don’t use that heavy-duty conditioning regimen, but we’ve had absolutely zero return of inflammatory events over 23 years that we’ve been doing this. Nobody’s had another attack, no one has even developed a single new MRI lesion.”

The so-called medium and light conditioning regimens are associated with a return of disease activity in about 25% of patients within 3 years, Dr. Freedman added. “You start to see new MRI lesions form and relapses occurring. It’s still better than any of the higher efficacy therapies, but it’s not stopped the disease.”

A key limitation of the study is that its efficacy analysis did not distinguish between different intensities of AHSCT regimens, according to the authors.
 

Encouraging results

AHSCT is highly effective at temporarily eliminating inflammation in the central nervous system, according to Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, and Anne Cross, MD, professor of neurology at Washington University, St. Louis, who wrote an editorial that accompanied the study. As many as 35% of patients require DMTs at some point after AHSCT.

The results of the new study are encouraging, but plenty of unanswered questions remain, Dr. Cohen said. “Many studies demonstrate AHSCT to have potent durable efficacy that appears to be greater than that of the available DMTs, but some studies – for example, this one – suggest that AHSCT may be superior to some but not all DMTs. Therefore, where to place AHSCT in the overall treatment sequence remains uncertain.” Randomized, controlled trials that are now in process “hopefully will clarify,” he added.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Multiple Sclerosis Australia, and the MS Foundation of Canada. Dr. Kalincik has financial relationships with Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Merck, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen. Dr. Freedman has financial relationships with Sanofi-Genzyme Canada, Alexion, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer Healthcare, Beigene, BMS (Celgene), EMD, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck Serono, Quanterix, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Canada Innovation, Celestra Health, McKesson, and EMD Serono. Dr. Cohen has financial relationships with Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI.

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

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) is more effective than fingolimod and natalizumab for patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), data indicate.

In a multicenter study that emulated pairwise trials, AHSCT was associated with a higher likelihood of disability improvement, compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio, 2.70).

Once the immune system is reconstituted, it can contribute to the healing process. AHSCT thus provides the possibility of improvement in MS. Disease-modifying therapies that require continued use, however, could inhibit that process.

“If you can stop the inflammation that’s driving this disease fairly early on, [patients] do have the capacity to repair,” said study author Mark Freedman, MD, a professor of neurology at the University of Ottawa. “And we start to see that especially in a treatment [like AHSCT] where you don’t maintain the hit on the immune system.”

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Pairwise analyses

Single-arm studies and an open-label, randomized trial have suggested that AHSCT has efficacy. The regimen is associated with a 0.3%-2.0% risk for mortality, but this risk has declined with better patient selection and clinical experience, according to the researchers. Comparative studies of AHSCT and DMTs are needed, but they are difficult to carry out, which is why the current team chose a propensity-score matched case–control design, according to lead author Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, head of the University of Melbourne’s Clinical Outcomes Research Unit.

The researchers examined data from 4,915 patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Of this population, 3.4% received AHSCT, 52.0% received fingolimod, 30.3% received natalizumab, and 14.2% received ocrelizumab. The proportion of women in the treatment groups ranged from 65% to 70%.

The researchers used pairwise matching to simulate the randomized, controlled trials comparing AHSCT with fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab. Patients were matched on the basis of sex, age, disability, relapse events at 12 and 24 months before baseline, time from first symptoms to baseline, the most effective previous DMT, and geographical region.

Compared with fingolimod, AHSCT was associated with fewer relapses (annualized relapse rate, 0.09 vs. 0.20; P < .001). This finding was confirmed by a reduced cumulative hazard of relapse (HR, 0.26).

Compared with natalizumab, AHSCT had only a modestly greater effect on annualized relapse rates (ARR, 0.08 vs. 0.10; P = .03), with a cumulative HR for relapses of 0.51.

There was no significant difference in the risk for relapse between treatment with AHSCT and with ocrelizumab (ARR, 0.09 vs. 0.06; P = .86), nor was the risk of cumulative relapses significantly different between these treatments.

Among patients included in the pairwise analyses who received AHSCT, 23.3% developed febrile neutropenia during mobilization, 11.3% developed serum sickness, and 8.8% were admitted to an intensive care unit. There were 82 serious adverse events among 58 patients after they were discharged post AHSCT treatment, including infections (59.8% of adverse events) that were primarily due to viral sources (41.5% of adverse events). There was one death (0.6%) due to veno-occlusive disease of the liver following busulfan exposure.

Some AHSCT protocols are stronger than others, and milder immune ablative measures are less likely to produce lasting effects. “We completely remove the old immune system and put in a brand new one,” said Dr. Freedman, referring to the practice at his center. “That’s a fairly horrendous procedure, and, not surprisingly, we’ve had a slight increase in the types of side effects, compared with other groups who don’t use that heavy-duty conditioning regimen, but we’ve had absolutely zero return of inflammatory events over 23 years that we’ve been doing this. Nobody’s had another attack, no one has even developed a single new MRI lesion.”

The so-called medium and light conditioning regimens are associated with a return of disease activity in about 25% of patients within 3 years, Dr. Freedman added. “You start to see new MRI lesions form and relapses occurring. It’s still better than any of the higher efficacy therapies, but it’s not stopped the disease.”

A key limitation of the study is that its efficacy analysis did not distinguish between different intensities of AHSCT regimens, according to the authors.
 

Encouraging results

AHSCT is highly effective at temporarily eliminating inflammation in the central nervous system, according to Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, and Anne Cross, MD, professor of neurology at Washington University, St. Louis, who wrote an editorial that accompanied the study. As many as 35% of patients require DMTs at some point after AHSCT.

The results of the new study are encouraging, but plenty of unanswered questions remain, Dr. Cohen said. “Many studies demonstrate AHSCT to have potent durable efficacy that appears to be greater than that of the available DMTs, but some studies – for example, this one – suggest that AHSCT may be superior to some but not all DMTs. Therefore, where to place AHSCT in the overall treatment sequence remains uncertain.” Randomized, controlled trials that are now in process “hopefully will clarify,” he added.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Multiple Sclerosis Australia, and the MS Foundation of Canada. Dr. Kalincik has financial relationships with Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Merck, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen. Dr. Freedman has financial relationships with Sanofi-Genzyme Canada, Alexion, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer Healthcare, Beigene, BMS (Celgene), EMD, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck Serono, Quanterix, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Canada Innovation, Celestra Health, McKesson, and EMD Serono. Dr. Cohen has financial relationships with Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI.

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

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) is more effective than fingolimod and natalizumab for patients with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), data indicate.

In a multicenter study that emulated pairwise trials, AHSCT was associated with a higher likelihood of disability improvement, compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio, 2.70).

Once the immune system is reconstituted, it can contribute to the healing process. AHSCT thus provides the possibility of improvement in MS. Disease-modifying therapies that require continued use, however, could inhibit that process.

“If you can stop the inflammation that’s driving this disease fairly early on, [patients] do have the capacity to repair,” said study author Mark Freedman, MD, a professor of neurology at the University of Ottawa. “And we start to see that especially in a treatment [like AHSCT] where you don’t maintain the hit on the immune system.”

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Pairwise analyses

Single-arm studies and an open-label, randomized trial have suggested that AHSCT has efficacy. The regimen is associated with a 0.3%-2.0% risk for mortality, but this risk has declined with better patient selection and clinical experience, according to the researchers. Comparative studies of AHSCT and DMTs are needed, but they are difficult to carry out, which is why the current team chose a propensity-score matched case–control design, according to lead author Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, head of the University of Melbourne’s Clinical Outcomes Research Unit.

The researchers examined data from 4,915 patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Of this population, 3.4% received AHSCT, 52.0% received fingolimod, 30.3% received natalizumab, and 14.2% received ocrelizumab. The proportion of women in the treatment groups ranged from 65% to 70%.

The researchers used pairwise matching to simulate the randomized, controlled trials comparing AHSCT with fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab. Patients were matched on the basis of sex, age, disability, relapse events at 12 and 24 months before baseline, time from first symptoms to baseline, the most effective previous DMT, and geographical region.

Compared with fingolimod, AHSCT was associated with fewer relapses (annualized relapse rate, 0.09 vs. 0.20; P < .001). This finding was confirmed by a reduced cumulative hazard of relapse (HR, 0.26).

Compared with natalizumab, AHSCT had only a modestly greater effect on annualized relapse rates (ARR, 0.08 vs. 0.10; P = .03), with a cumulative HR for relapses of 0.51.

There was no significant difference in the risk for relapse between treatment with AHSCT and with ocrelizumab (ARR, 0.09 vs. 0.06; P = .86), nor was the risk of cumulative relapses significantly different between these treatments.

Among patients included in the pairwise analyses who received AHSCT, 23.3% developed febrile neutropenia during mobilization, 11.3% developed serum sickness, and 8.8% were admitted to an intensive care unit. There were 82 serious adverse events among 58 patients after they were discharged post AHSCT treatment, including infections (59.8% of adverse events) that were primarily due to viral sources (41.5% of adverse events). There was one death (0.6%) due to veno-occlusive disease of the liver following busulfan exposure.

Some AHSCT protocols are stronger than others, and milder immune ablative measures are less likely to produce lasting effects. “We completely remove the old immune system and put in a brand new one,” said Dr. Freedman, referring to the practice at his center. “That’s a fairly horrendous procedure, and, not surprisingly, we’ve had a slight increase in the types of side effects, compared with other groups who don’t use that heavy-duty conditioning regimen, but we’ve had absolutely zero return of inflammatory events over 23 years that we’ve been doing this. Nobody’s had another attack, no one has even developed a single new MRI lesion.”

The so-called medium and light conditioning regimens are associated with a return of disease activity in about 25% of patients within 3 years, Dr. Freedman added. “You start to see new MRI lesions form and relapses occurring. It’s still better than any of the higher efficacy therapies, but it’s not stopped the disease.”

A key limitation of the study is that its efficacy analysis did not distinguish between different intensities of AHSCT regimens, according to the authors.
 

Encouraging results

AHSCT is highly effective at temporarily eliminating inflammation in the central nervous system, according to Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, and Anne Cross, MD, professor of neurology at Washington University, St. Louis, who wrote an editorial that accompanied the study. As many as 35% of patients require DMTs at some point after AHSCT.

The results of the new study are encouraging, but plenty of unanswered questions remain, Dr. Cohen said. “Many studies demonstrate AHSCT to have potent durable efficacy that appears to be greater than that of the available DMTs, but some studies – for example, this one – suggest that AHSCT may be superior to some but not all DMTs. Therefore, where to place AHSCT in the overall treatment sequence remains uncertain.” Randomized, controlled trials that are now in process “hopefully will clarify,” he added.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Multiple Sclerosis Australia, and the MS Foundation of Canada. Dr. Kalincik has financial relationships with Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Merck, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen. Dr. Freedman has financial relationships with Sanofi-Genzyme Canada, Alexion, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer Healthcare, Beigene, BMS (Celgene), EMD, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck Serono, Quanterix, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Canada Innovation, Celestra Health, McKesson, and EMD Serono. Dr. Cohen has financial relationships with Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI.

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

A new practice guideline aims to help clinicians navigate an increasingly crowded field of over-the-counter and prescription treatment options for chronic idiopathic constipation in otherwise-healthy people.

The guideline, published simultaneously in the American Journal of Gastroenterology and in Gastroenterology, was developed jointly by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology. It marks the AGA’s first update on chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC), also called functional constipation, in a decade.

In an interview, guideline lead author Lin Chang, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, noted that CIC – defined as constipation lasting at least 3 months in the absence of malignancy or obstruction, a medication side effect, or inflammatory bowel disease – is common, affecting between 8% and 12% of all U.S. adults. Most will be treated by primary care physicians, not specialists, Dr. Chang said. And most will see their physicians having already tried different over-the-counter treatments.

“The criteria for CIC or functional constipation hasn’t really changed” since the last AGA guideline on it was published in 2013, Dr. Chang said, adding that the diagnostic standard currently used is the Rome IV criteria for functional constipation. “There are just more medications right now than there were 10 years ago.”

The new guideline, into which evidence from 28 studies was integrated, offers recommendations regarding different types of fiber; the osmotic laxatives polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, and lactulose; and the stimulant laxatives bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, and senna. It also assesses the secretagogues lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide, and the serotonin type 4 agonist prucalopride.

One commonly used agent in clinical practice, the stool softener docusate sodium, does not appear in the guideline, as there was too little data available on it to make an assessment, Dr. Chang said. Fruit-based laxatives were excluded because they were the subject of a recent evidence review. Lifestyle modifications such as exercise, surgical interventions, and probiotics were not assessed.

The guideline’s strongest recommendations are for polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride, with conditional recommendations for fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone.

As costs of the recommended therapies vary from less than $10 a month to over $500, the authors also included price information, noting that “patient values, costs, and health equity considerations” must be factored into treatment choices. “For polyethylene glycol there’s a strong recommendation, although the certainty of evidence was moderate,” Dr. Chang said. “And with fiber, even though we made only a conditional recommendation based on the evidence, our remarks and our algorithm make clear that it should be considered as a first-line treatment.”

In general, “if someone has more mild symptoms, you should try fiber or increase their fiber intake in their diet,” Dr. Chang commented. “If that doesn’t work, try over-the-counter remedies like polyethylene glycol. Then if symptoms are more severe, or if they fail the first-line treatments, then you go to prescription agents.”

In clinical practice, “there always considerations besides scientific evidence of safety and efficacy,” Dr. Chang stressed. “You have to personalize treatment for the patient.” A patient may present having already failed with fiber, or who does not want to use magnesium or can’t afford a costlier agent.

The guidelines contain implementation advice that might guide choice of therapy or dosing. With the prescription osmotic laxative lactulose, for example, “you may not wish to use it as a first-line treatment because bloating and flatulence are very common,” Dr. Chang said. “Our implementation advice makes that clear.” For senna, a stimulant laxative derived from the leaves of the senna plant and for which quality evidence is limited, the guideline authors stressed that patients should be started on low doses to avoid cramping.

Dr. Chang said that, while the new guideline covers medication options for otherwise-healthy adults, clinicians should be mindful that patients presenting with CIC might still have a defecatory disorder. “A person could also have pelvic floor dysfunction as a primary cause or contributing factor. If someone fails fiber or polyethylene glycol, consider a digital rectal examination as part of the physical exam. If this is abnormal, consider referring them for anorectal manometry.”

Untreated constipation carries risks, Dr. Chang noted, but “sometimes people with bothersome symptoms don’t treat them because they’re worried they’ll become dependent on treatment. It’s a dependency in the sense that you have to treat any chronic condition, such as high blood pressure or diabetes, but the treatments aren’t addictive, except for some stimulant laxatives to which people can develop tolerance.”

Hemorrhoids and defecatory disorders can occur over time because of straining, Dr. Chang said. “The pelvic wall can also get very lax, and that is hard to fix. Or, one can develop a rectal prolapse. Another thing that happens when people have longstanding constipation for many years is they start losing the urge to have a bowel movement.”

For more information, see the related clinical decision support tool in Gastroenterology.

The guideline’s development was funded by the AGA and ACG, without industry support. Authors with conflicts of interest regarding a specific intervention or drug were not allowed to weigh in on those interventions.

A new practice guideline aims to help clinicians navigate an increasingly crowded field of over-the-counter and prescription treatment options for chronic idiopathic constipation in otherwise-healthy people.

The guideline, published simultaneously in the American Journal of Gastroenterology and in Gastroenterology, was developed jointly by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology. It marks the AGA’s first update on chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC), also called functional constipation, in a decade.

In an interview, guideline lead author Lin Chang, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, noted that CIC – defined as constipation lasting at least 3 months in the absence of malignancy or obstruction, a medication side effect, or inflammatory bowel disease – is common, affecting between 8% and 12% of all U.S. adults. Most will be treated by primary care physicians, not specialists, Dr. Chang said. And most will see their physicians having already tried different over-the-counter treatments.

“The criteria for CIC or functional constipation hasn’t really changed” since the last AGA guideline on it was published in 2013, Dr. Chang said, adding that the diagnostic standard currently used is the Rome IV criteria for functional constipation. “There are just more medications right now than there were 10 years ago.”

The new guideline, into which evidence from 28 studies was integrated, offers recommendations regarding different types of fiber; the osmotic laxatives polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, and lactulose; and the stimulant laxatives bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, and senna. It also assesses the secretagogues lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide, and the serotonin type 4 agonist prucalopride.

One commonly used agent in clinical practice, the stool softener docusate sodium, does not appear in the guideline, as there was too little data available on it to make an assessment, Dr. Chang said. Fruit-based laxatives were excluded because they were the subject of a recent evidence review. Lifestyle modifications such as exercise, surgical interventions, and probiotics were not assessed.

The guideline’s strongest recommendations are for polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride, with conditional recommendations for fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone.

As costs of the recommended therapies vary from less than $10 a month to over $500, the authors also included price information, noting that “patient values, costs, and health equity considerations” must be factored into treatment choices. “For polyethylene glycol there’s a strong recommendation, although the certainty of evidence was moderate,” Dr. Chang said. “And with fiber, even though we made only a conditional recommendation based on the evidence, our remarks and our algorithm make clear that it should be considered as a first-line treatment.”

In general, “if someone has more mild symptoms, you should try fiber or increase their fiber intake in their diet,” Dr. Chang commented. “If that doesn’t work, try over-the-counter remedies like polyethylene glycol. Then if symptoms are more severe, or if they fail the first-line treatments, then you go to prescription agents.”

In clinical practice, “there always considerations besides scientific evidence of safety and efficacy,” Dr. Chang stressed. “You have to personalize treatment for the patient.” A patient may present having already failed with fiber, or who does not want to use magnesium or can’t afford a costlier agent.

The guidelines contain implementation advice that might guide choice of therapy or dosing. With the prescription osmotic laxative lactulose, for example, “you may not wish to use it as a first-line treatment because bloating and flatulence are very common,” Dr. Chang said. “Our implementation advice makes that clear.” For senna, a stimulant laxative derived from the leaves of the senna plant and for which quality evidence is limited, the guideline authors stressed that patients should be started on low doses to avoid cramping.

Dr. Chang said that, while the new guideline covers medication options for otherwise-healthy adults, clinicians should be mindful that patients presenting with CIC might still have a defecatory disorder. “A person could also have pelvic floor dysfunction as a primary cause or contributing factor. If someone fails fiber or polyethylene glycol, consider a digital rectal examination as part of the physical exam. If this is abnormal, consider referring them for anorectal manometry.”

Untreated constipation carries risks, Dr. Chang noted, but “sometimes people with bothersome symptoms don’t treat them because they’re worried they’ll become dependent on treatment. It’s a dependency in the sense that you have to treat any chronic condition, such as high blood pressure or diabetes, but the treatments aren’t addictive, except for some stimulant laxatives to which people can develop tolerance.”

Hemorrhoids and defecatory disorders can occur over time because of straining, Dr. Chang said. “The pelvic wall can also get very lax, and that is hard to fix. Or, one can develop a rectal prolapse. Another thing that happens when people have longstanding constipation for many years is they start losing the urge to have a bowel movement.”

For more information, see the related clinical decision support tool in Gastroenterology.

The guideline’s development was funded by the AGA and ACG, without industry support. Authors with conflicts of interest regarding a specific intervention or drug were not allowed to weigh in on those interventions.

A new practice guideline aims to help clinicians navigate an increasingly crowded field of over-the-counter and prescription treatment options for chronic idiopathic constipation in otherwise-healthy people.

The guideline, published simultaneously in the American Journal of Gastroenterology and in Gastroenterology, was developed jointly by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology. It marks the AGA’s first update on chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC), also called functional constipation, in a decade.

In an interview, guideline lead author Lin Chang, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, noted that CIC – defined as constipation lasting at least 3 months in the absence of malignancy or obstruction, a medication side effect, or inflammatory bowel disease – is common, affecting between 8% and 12% of all U.S. adults. Most will be treated by primary care physicians, not specialists, Dr. Chang said. And most will see their physicians having already tried different over-the-counter treatments.

“The criteria for CIC or functional constipation hasn’t really changed” since the last AGA guideline on it was published in 2013, Dr. Chang said, adding that the diagnostic standard currently used is the Rome IV criteria for functional constipation. “There are just more medications right now than there were 10 years ago.”

The new guideline, into which evidence from 28 studies was integrated, offers recommendations regarding different types of fiber; the osmotic laxatives polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, and lactulose; and the stimulant laxatives bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, and senna. It also assesses the secretagogues lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide, and the serotonin type 4 agonist prucalopride.

One commonly used agent in clinical practice, the stool softener docusate sodium, does not appear in the guideline, as there was too little data available on it to make an assessment, Dr. Chang said. Fruit-based laxatives were excluded because they were the subject of a recent evidence review. Lifestyle modifications such as exercise, surgical interventions, and probiotics were not assessed.

The guideline’s strongest recommendations are for polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride, with conditional recommendations for fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone.

As costs of the recommended therapies vary from less than $10 a month to over $500, the authors also included price information, noting that “patient values, costs, and health equity considerations” must be factored into treatment choices. “For polyethylene glycol there’s a strong recommendation, although the certainty of evidence was moderate,” Dr. Chang said. “And with fiber, even though we made only a conditional recommendation based on the evidence, our remarks and our algorithm make clear that it should be considered as a first-line treatment.”

In general, “if someone has more mild symptoms, you should try fiber or increase their fiber intake in their diet,” Dr. Chang commented. “If that doesn’t work, try over-the-counter remedies like polyethylene glycol. Then if symptoms are more severe, or if they fail the first-line treatments, then you go to prescription agents.”

In clinical practice, “there always considerations besides scientific evidence of safety and efficacy,” Dr. Chang stressed. “You have to personalize treatment for the patient.” A patient may present having already failed with fiber, or who does not want to use magnesium or can’t afford a costlier agent.

The guidelines contain implementation advice that might guide choice of therapy or dosing. With the prescription osmotic laxative lactulose, for example, “you may not wish to use it as a first-line treatment because bloating and flatulence are very common,” Dr. Chang said. “Our implementation advice makes that clear.” For senna, a stimulant laxative derived from the leaves of the senna plant and for which quality evidence is limited, the guideline authors stressed that patients should be started on low doses to avoid cramping.

Dr. Chang said that, while the new guideline covers medication options for otherwise-healthy adults, clinicians should be mindful that patients presenting with CIC might still have a defecatory disorder. “A person could also have pelvic floor dysfunction as a primary cause or contributing factor. If someone fails fiber or polyethylene glycol, consider a digital rectal examination as part of the physical exam. If this is abnormal, consider referring them for anorectal manometry.”

Untreated constipation carries risks, Dr. Chang noted, but “sometimes people with bothersome symptoms don’t treat them because they’re worried they’ll become dependent on treatment. It’s a dependency in the sense that you have to treat any chronic condition, such as high blood pressure or diabetes, but the treatments aren’t addictive, except for some stimulant laxatives to which people can develop tolerance.”

Hemorrhoids and defecatory disorders can occur over time because of straining, Dr. Chang said. “The pelvic wall can also get very lax, and that is hard to fix. Or, one can develop a rectal prolapse. Another thing that happens when people have longstanding constipation for many years is they start losing the urge to have a bowel movement.”

For more information, see the related clinical decision support tool in Gastroenterology.

The guideline’s development was funded by the AGA and ACG, without industry support. Authors with conflicts of interest regarding a specific intervention or drug were not allowed to weigh in on those interventions.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has announced that Medicare will cover drugs designed to slow Alzheimer’s disease once they receive traditional approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

The one caveat is that CMS will require physicians to participate in registries that collect evidence about how these drugs work in the real world.

Physicians will be able to submit this evidence through a nationwide, CMS-facilitated portal that will be available when any product gains traditional approval and will collect information via an easy-to-use format.

“If the FDA grants traditional approval, then Medicare will cover it in appropriate settings that also support the collection of real-world information to study the usefulness of these drugs for people with Medicare,” the CMS says in a news release.

“CMS has always been committed to helping people obtain timely access to innovative treatments that meaningfully improve care and outcomes for this disease,” added CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

“If the FDA grants traditional approval, CMS is prepared to ensure anyone with Medicare Part B who meets the criteria is covered,” Ms. Brooks-LaSure explained.

The CMS says broader Medicare coverage for an Alzheimer’s drug would begin on the same day the FDA grants traditional approval. Under CMS’ current coverage policy, if the FDA grants traditional approval to other drugs in this class, they would also be eligible for broader coverage.

Currently two drugs in this class – aducanumab (Aduhelm) and lecanemab (Leqembi) – have received accelerated approval from the FDA, but no product has received traditional approval.

Lecanemab might be the first to cross the line.

On June 9, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee will discuss results of a confirmatory trial of lecanemab, with a potential decision on traditional approval expected shortly thereafter.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has announced that Medicare will cover drugs designed to slow Alzheimer’s disease once they receive traditional approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

The one caveat is that CMS will require physicians to participate in registries that collect evidence about how these drugs work in the real world.

Physicians will be able to submit this evidence through a nationwide, CMS-facilitated portal that will be available when any product gains traditional approval and will collect information via an easy-to-use format.

“If the FDA grants traditional approval, then Medicare will cover it in appropriate settings that also support the collection of real-world information to study the usefulness of these drugs for people with Medicare,” the CMS says in a news release.

“CMS has always been committed to helping people obtain timely access to innovative treatments that meaningfully improve care and outcomes for this disease,” added CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

“If the FDA grants traditional approval, CMS is prepared to ensure anyone with Medicare Part B who meets the criteria is covered,” Ms. Brooks-LaSure explained.

The CMS says broader Medicare coverage for an Alzheimer’s drug would begin on the same day the FDA grants traditional approval. Under CMS’ current coverage policy, if the FDA grants traditional approval to other drugs in this class, they would also be eligible for broader coverage.

Currently two drugs in this class – aducanumab (Aduhelm) and lecanemab (Leqembi) – have received accelerated approval from the FDA, but no product has received traditional approval.

Lecanemab might be the first to cross the line.

On June 9, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee will discuss results of a confirmatory trial of lecanemab, with a potential decision on traditional approval expected shortly thereafter.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has announced that Medicare will cover drugs designed to slow Alzheimer’s disease once they receive traditional approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

The one caveat is that CMS will require physicians to participate in registries that collect evidence about how these drugs work in the real world.

Physicians will be able to submit this evidence through a nationwide, CMS-facilitated portal that will be available when any product gains traditional approval and will collect information via an easy-to-use format.

“If the FDA grants traditional approval, then Medicare will cover it in appropriate settings that also support the collection of real-world information to study the usefulness of these drugs for people with Medicare,” the CMS says in a news release.

“CMS has always been committed to helping people obtain timely access to innovative treatments that meaningfully improve care and outcomes for this disease,” added CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

“If the FDA grants traditional approval, CMS is prepared to ensure anyone with Medicare Part B who meets the criteria is covered,” Ms. Brooks-LaSure explained.

The CMS says broader Medicare coverage for an Alzheimer’s drug would begin on the same day the FDA grants traditional approval. Under CMS’ current coverage policy, if the FDA grants traditional approval to other drugs in this class, they would also be eligible for broader coverage.

Currently two drugs in this class – aducanumab (Aduhelm) and lecanemab (Leqembi) – have received accelerated approval from the FDA, but no product has received traditional approval.

Lecanemab might be the first to cross the line.

On June 9, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee will discuss results of a confirmatory trial of lecanemab, with a potential decision on traditional approval expected shortly thereafter.

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

About 10% of people infected with Omicron reported having long COVID, a lower percentage than estimated for people infected with earlier strains of the coronavirus, according to a study published in JAMA. 

The research team looked at data from 8,646 adults infected with COVID-19 at different times of the pandemic and 1,118 who did not have COVID. 

“Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection on or after Dec. 1, 2021, when the Omicron variant was circulating, about 10% experienced long-term symptoms or long COVID after 6 months,” the National Institutes of Health said in a news release. 

People who were unvaccinated or got COVID before Omicron were more likely to have long COVID and had more severe cases, the NIH said.

Previous studies have come up with higher figures than 10% for people who have long COVID. 

For instance, in June 2022 the CDC said one in five Americans who had COVID reported having long COVID. And a University of Oxford study published in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had long COVID symptoms.

The scientists in the most recent study identified 12 symptoms that distinguished people who did and didn’t have COVID. The scientists developed a scoring system for the symptoms to set a threshold to identify people who had long COVID, the NIH said.

The symptoms were fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Another symptom was postexertional malaise, or worse symptoms after mental or physical exertion. 

Scientists still have many questions about long COVID, such as how many people get it and why some people get it and others don’t. 

The study was coordinated through the NIH’s RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative, which aims to find out how to define, detect, and treat long COVID.

“The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which affects the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” the NIH said.

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

About 10% of people infected with Omicron reported having long COVID, a lower percentage than estimated for people infected with earlier strains of the coronavirus, according to a study published in JAMA. 

The research team looked at data from 8,646 adults infected with COVID-19 at different times of the pandemic and 1,118 who did not have COVID. 

“Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection on or after Dec. 1, 2021, when the Omicron variant was circulating, about 10% experienced long-term symptoms or long COVID after 6 months,” the National Institutes of Health said in a news release. 

People who were unvaccinated or got COVID before Omicron were more likely to have long COVID and had more severe cases, the NIH said.

Previous studies have come up with higher figures than 10% for people who have long COVID. 

For instance, in June 2022 the CDC said one in five Americans who had COVID reported having long COVID. And a University of Oxford study published in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had long COVID symptoms.

The scientists in the most recent study identified 12 symptoms that distinguished people who did and didn’t have COVID. The scientists developed a scoring system for the symptoms to set a threshold to identify people who had long COVID, the NIH said.

The symptoms were fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Another symptom was postexertional malaise, or worse symptoms after mental or physical exertion. 

Scientists still have many questions about long COVID, such as how many people get it and why some people get it and others don’t. 

The study was coordinated through the NIH’s RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative, which aims to find out how to define, detect, and treat long COVID.

“The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which affects the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” the NIH said.

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

About 10% of people infected with Omicron reported having long COVID, a lower percentage than estimated for people infected with earlier strains of the coronavirus, according to a study published in JAMA. 

The research team looked at data from 8,646 adults infected with COVID-19 at different times of the pandemic and 1,118 who did not have COVID. 

“Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection on or after Dec. 1, 2021, when the Omicron variant was circulating, about 10% experienced long-term symptoms or long COVID after 6 months,” the National Institutes of Health said in a news release. 

People who were unvaccinated or got COVID before Omicron were more likely to have long COVID and had more severe cases, the NIH said.

Previous studies have come up with higher figures than 10% for people who have long COVID. 

For instance, in June 2022 the CDC said one in five Americans who had COVID reported having long COVID. And a University of Oxford study published in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had long COVID symptoms.

The scientists in the most recent study identified 12 symptoms that distinguished people who did and didn’t have COVID. The scientists developed a scoring system for the symptoms to set a threshold to identify people who had long COVID, the NIH said.

The symptoms were fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Another symptom was postexertional malaise, or worse symptoms after mental or physical exertion. 

Scientists still have many questions about long COVID, such as how many people get it and why some people get it and others don’t. 

The study was coordinated through the NIH’s RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative, which aims to find out how to define, detect, and treat long COVID.

“The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which affects the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” the NIH said.

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

COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.

They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.

“These findings support the safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination in early pregnancy,” they wrote.

The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.

“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.

The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”

The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.

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

COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.

They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.

“These findings support the safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination in early pregnancy,” they wrote.

The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.

“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.

The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”

The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.

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

COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.

They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.

“These findings support the safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination in early pregnancy,” they wrote.

The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.

“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.

The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”

The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.

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