Ob.Gyn. News

A cluster of ocular presentation of syphilis has experts questioning whether this rare finding suggests the bacterium has mutated, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With the incidence of syphilis infection in women increasing in the United States, experts are asking clinicians to be on the lookout for unusual ocular presentations. 

“This is the first time such a cluster has been reported in the US,” the International Society for Infectious Diseases posted on ProMED. 

Five women in Southwest Michigan who had a common male sex partner developed syphilis infections in their eyes. No new cases have been found related to these five cases after the women and the man received medical care. 

If left untreated, the bacterium, Treponema pallidum, can infect the eyes, the ears, and the central nervous system.

The women, identified as non-Hispanic White, were aged 40-60 years and were not infected with HIV. They were diagnosed with early-stage syphilis and all were hospitalized and treated with intravenous penicillin. Routes of sexual exposure among the women included anal (40%), oral (40%), and vaginal (100%), the report states.

The common male sex partner they all met online was found to have early latent syphilis but never developed ocular syphilis. 

It is not the eyes that are being exposed. Rather, it is an ocular presentation brought about by a systemic infection carried through the bloodstream after sexual exposure, explains William Nettleton, MD, MPH, medical director of the Kalamazoo and Calhoun public health departments in Michigan and lead author of the report.

“If we screen, identify, and treat syphilis promptly, we can prevent systemic manifestations,” he says. 

Clinicians should be aware that the ocular manifestations can come at different stages of syphilis. “For patients you think may have ocular syphilis,” Dr. Nettleton says, “an immediate ophthalmologic evaluation is indicated.” 

Symptoms Differed

The five women presented with a variety of symptoms. 

Multiple attempts to contact the male partner by telephone and text were made by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, but he did not respond. Local public health physicians reviewed the man’s electronic health record and discovered that he had sought care at a hospital emergency department in January 2022 for ulcerative penile and anal lesions. 

He reported having multiple female sex partners during the previous 12 months but declined to disclose their identities; he reported no male or transgender sexual contact, according to the CDC report. Eventually he agreed to an evaluation, was found to have early latent syphilis, and was treated with penicillin. 

Cases of syphilis have been soaring in the United States in recent years, reaching a 70-year high.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A cluster of ocular presentation of syphilis has experts questioning whether this rare finding suggests the bacterium has mutated, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With the incidence of syphilis infection in women increasing in the United States, experts are asking clinicians to be on the lookout for unusual ocular presentations. 

“This is the first time such a cluster has been reported in the US,” the International Society for Infectious Diseases posted on ProMED. 

Five women in Southwest Michigan who had a common male sex partner developed syphilis infections in their eyes. No new cases have been found related to these five cases after the women and the man received medical care. 

If left untreated, the bacterium, Treponema pallidum, can infect the eyes, the ears, and the central nervous system.

The women, identified as non-Hispanic White, were aged 40-60 years and were not infected with HIV. They were diagnosed with early-stage syphilis and all were hospitalized and treated with intravenous penicillin. Routes of sexual exposure among the women included anal (40%), oral (40%), and vaginal (100%), the report states.

The common male sex partner they all met online was found to have early latent syphilis but never developed ocular syphilis. 

It is not the eyes that are being exposed. Rather, it is an ocular presentation brought about by a systemic infection carried through the bloodstream after sexual exposure, explains William Nettleton, MD, MPH, medical director of the Kalamazoo and Calhoun public health departments in Michigan and lead author of the report.

“If we screen, identify, and treat syphilis promptly, we can prevent systemic manifestations,” he says. 

Clinicians should be aware that the ocular manifestations can come at different stages of syphilis. “For patients you think may have ocular syphilis,” Dr. Nettleton says, “an immediate ophthalmologic evaluation is indicated.” 

Symptoms Differed

The five women presented with a variety of symptoms. 

Multiple attempts to contact the male partner by telephone and text were made by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, but he did not respond. Local public health physicians reviewed the man’s electronic health record and discovered that he had sought care at a hospital emergency department in January 2022 for ulcerative penile and anal lesions. 

He reported having multiple female sex partners during the previous 12 months but declined to disclose their identities; he reported no male or transgender sexual contact, according to the CDC report. Eventually he agreed to an evaluation, was found to have early latent syphilis, and was treated with penicillin. 

Cases of syphilis have been soaring in the United States in recent years, reaching a 70-year high.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A cluster of ocular presentation of syphilis has experts questioning whether this rare finding suggests the bacterium has mutated, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With the incidence of syphilis infection in women increasing in the United States, experts are asking clinicians to be on the lookout for unusual ocular presentations. 

“This is the first time such a cluster has been reported in the US,” the International Society for Infectious Diseases posted on ProMED. 

Five women in Southwest Michigan who had a common male sex partner developed syphilis infections in their eyes. No new cases have been found related to these five cases after the women and the man received medical care. 

If left untreated, the bacterium, Treponema pallidum, can infect the eyes, the ears, and the central nervous system.

The women, identified as non-Hispanic White, were aged 40-60 years and were not infected with HIV. They were diagnosed with early-stage syphilis and all were hospitalized and treated with intravenous penicillin. Routes of sexual exposure among the women included anal (40%), oral (40%), and vaginal (100%), the report states.

The common male sex partner they all met online was found to have early latent syphilis but never developed ocular syphilis. 

It is not the eyes that are being exposed. Rather, it is an ocular presentation brought about by a systemic infection carried through the bloodstream after sexual exposure, explains William Nettleton, MD, MPH, medical director of the Kalamazoo and Calhoun public health departments in Michigan and lead author of the report.

“If we screen, identify, and treat syphilis promptly, we can prevent systemic manifestations,” he says. 

Clinicians should be aware that the ocular manifestations can come at different stages of syphilis. “For patients you think may have ocular syphilis,” Dr. Nettleton says, “an immediate ophthalmologic evaluation is indicated.” 

Symptoms Differed

The five women presented with a variety of symptoms. 

Multiple attempts to contact the male partner by telephone and text were made by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, but he did not respond. Local public health physicians reviewed the man’s electronic health record and discovered that he had sought care at a hospital emergency department in January 2022 for ulcerative penile and anal lesions. 

He reported having multiple female sex partners during the previous 12 months but declined to disclose their identities; he reported no male or transgender sexual contact, according to the CDC report. Eventually he agreed to an evaluation, was found to have early latent syphilis, and was treated with penicillin. 

Cases of syphilis have been soaring in the United States in recent years, reaching a 70-year high.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pregnancy weight gain is lower in women with a history of gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy than in those without such a history, especially when the interval between surgery and conception is shorter, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using Swedish national registers, researchers investigated the association of pregnancy weight gain with  history in 12,776 pregnancies — 6388 in women with a history of bariatric surgery and 6388 in women without such a history.
• Pregnancies were propensity score matched to patients’ early-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), prepregnancy diabetes, , smoking status, education, height, country of birth, and delivery year.
• Post-gastric bypass pregnancies were matched to post-sleeve gastrectomy pregnancies using the same matching strategy.
• Time from surgery to conception was also assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across all early-pregnancy BMI strata, women with a history of bariatric surgery had lower pregnancy weight gain than matched controls.
• The magnitude of difference was largest for women with normal weight or overweight early-pregnancy BMI status (adjusted mean difference in z score, −0.33), which then decreased stepwise within the  subclasses (−0.21, −0.16, and −0.08 for obesity classes I, II, and III, respectively).
• Pregnancy weight gain did not differ by surgery type, but lower pregnancy weight gain was associated with a shorter surgery-to-conception interval (particularly within 1 year) or lower surgery-to-conception weight loss.

IN PRACTICE:

“The highest proportion of weight gain below the recommendations was found among women with a normal weight status. Hence, clinical attention to women with history of bariatric surgery and a normal weight status in early pregnancy might be warranted,” the authors advised.

SOURCE:

The study, with the first author Huiling Xu, MD, MSc, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Despite rigorous matching, residual confounding was possible. The sample size was limited for some subgroups, possibly affecting statistical power. Although the study provides an overview of pregnancy outcomes within surgery-to-conception interval and pregnancy weight gain z scores, a more in-depth investigation is needed to understand the associations among bariatric surgery, pregnancy weight gain, and pregnancy outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

Research for this study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Research Council. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pregnancy weight gain is lower in women with a history of gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy than in those without such a history, especially when the interval between surgery and conception is shorter, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using Swedish national registers, researchers investigated the association of pregnancy weight gain with  history in 12,776 pregnancies — 6388 in women with a history of bariatric surgery and 6388 in women without such a history.
• Pregnancies were propensity score matched to patients’ early-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), prepregnancy diabetes, , smoking status, education, height, country of birth, and delivery year.
• Post-gastric bypass pregnancies were matched to post-sleeve gastrectomy pregnancies using the same matching strategy.
• Time from surgery to conception was also assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across all early-pregnancy BMI strata, women with a history of bariatric surgery had lower pregnancy weight gain than matched controls.
• The magnitude of difference was largest for women with normal weight or overweight early-pregnancy BMI status (adjusted mean difference in z score, −0.33), which then decreased stepwise within the  subclasses (−0.21, −0.16, and −0.08 for obesity classes I, II, and III, respectively).
• Pregnancy weight gain did not differ by surgery type, but lower pregnancy weight gain was associated with a shorter surgery-to-conception interval (particularly within 1 year) or lower surgery-to-conception weight loss.

IN PRACTICE:

“The highest proportion of weight gain below the recommendations was found among women with a normal weight status. Hence, clinical attention to women with history of bariatric surgery and a normal weight status in early pregnancy might be warranted,” the authors advised.

SOURCE:

The study, with the first author Huiling Xu, MD, MSc, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Despite rigorous matching, residual confounding was possible. The sample size was limited for some subgroups, possibly affecting statistical power. Although the study provides an overview of pregnancy outcomes within surgery-to-conception interval and pregnancy weight gain z scores, a more in-depth investigation is needed to understand the associations among bariatric surgery, pregnancy weight gain, and pregnancy outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

Research for this study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Research Council. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pregnancy weight gain is lower in women with a history of gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy than in those without such a history, especially when the interval between surgery and conception is shorter, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using Swedish national registers, researchers investigated the association of pregnancy weight gain with  history in 12,776 pregnancies — 6388 in women with a history of bariatric surgery and 6388 in women without such a history.
• Pregnancies were propensity score matched to patients’ early-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), prepregnancy diabetes, , smoking status, education, height, country of birth, and delivery year.
• Post-gastric bypass pregnancies were matched to post-sleeve gastrectomy pregnancies using the same matching strategy.
• Time from surgery to conception was also assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across all early-pregnancy BMI strata, women with a history of bariatric surgery had lower pregnancy weight gain than matched controls.
• The magnitude of difference was largest for women with normal weight or overweight early-pregnancy BMI status (adjusted mean difference in z score, −0.33), which then decreased stepwise within the  subclasses (−0.21, −0.16, and −0.08 for obesity classes I, II, and III, respectively).
• Pregnancy weight gain did not differ by surgery type, but lower pregnancy weight gain was associated with a shorter surgery-to-conception interval (particularly within 1 year) or lower surgery-to-conception weight loss.

IN PRACTICE:

“The highest proportion of weight gain below the recommendations was found among women with a normal weight status. Hence, clinical attention to women with history of bariatric surgery and a normal weight status in early pregnancy might be warranted,” the authors advised.

SOURCE:

The study, with the first author Huiling Xu, MD, MSc, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Despite rigorous matching, residual confounding was possible. The sample size was limited for some subgroups, possibly affecting statistical power. Although the study provides an overview of pregnancy outcomes within surgery-to-conception interval and pregnancy weight gain z scores, a more in-depth investigation is needed to understand the associations among bariatric surgery, pregnancy weight gain, and pregnancy outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

Research for this study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Research Council. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among adolescent pregnancies in the United States, the prevalence of e-cigarette use during the third trimester increased from 0.8% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2021, according to research published online on December 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2016-2021 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
• They focused on 10,428 adolescents aged 10-19 years who had had a singleton birth and provided information about their use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Whereas the researchers found a roughly fivefold increase in the exclusive use of e-cigarettes, the percentage of patients using only cigarettes decreased from 9.2% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2021.
• The percentage of patients who both vaped and smoked fluctuated between 0.6% and 1.6%.
• The rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births for adolescents who did not smoke or vape (12.9%) did not differ significantly from that among adolescents who exclusively used e-cigarettes (16.8%) or those who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (17.6%).
• The researchers found use of cigarettes only was associated with a significantly higher rate of SGA births: 24.6%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Exclusive e-cigarette use and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes did not seem to be statistically significantly associated with SGA birth in our analysis, but this finding should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of use and the limited sample size,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Xiaozhong Wen, MD, PhD, with the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the corresponding author of the study. 

LIMITATIONS:

Participants may have underreported their use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes because of fears of social stigma. The researchers lacked information about vaping in the first and second trimesters, exposure to secondhand smoke, cannabis use, and diet. 

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the American Heart Association. A study coauthor has received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, the World Health Organization, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among adolescent pregnancies in the United States, the prevalence of e-cigarette use during the third trimester increased from 0.8% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2021, according to research published online on December 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2016-2021 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
• They focused on 10,428 adolescents aged 10-19 years who had had a singleton birth and provided information about their use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Whereas the researchers found a roughly fivefold increase in the exclusive use of e-cigarettes, the percentage of patients using only cigarettes decreased from 9.2% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2021.
• The percentage of patients who both vaped and smoked fluctuated between 0.6% and 1.6%.
• The rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births for adolescents who did not smoke or vape (12.9%) did not differ significantly from that among adolescents who exclusively used e-cigarettes (16.8%) or those who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (17.6%).
• The researchers found use of cigarettes only was associated with a significantly higher rate of SGA births: 24.6%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Exclusive e-cigarette use and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes did not seem to be statistically significantly associated with SGA birth in our analysis, but this finding should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of use and the limited sample size,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Xiaozhong Wen, MD, PhD, with the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the corresponding author of the study. 

LIMITATIONS:

Participants may have underreported their use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes because of fears of social stigma. The researchers lacked information about vaping in the first and second trimesters, exposure to secondhand smoke, cannabis use, and diet. 

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the American Heart Association. A study coauthor has received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, the World Health Organization, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among adolescent pregnancies in the United States, the prevalence of e-cigarette use during the third trimester increased from 0.8% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2021, according to research published online on December 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2016-2021 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.
• They focused on 10,428 adolescents aged 10-19 years who had had a singleton birth and provided information about their use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Whereas the researchers found a roughly fivefold increase in the exclusive use of e-cigarettes, the percentage of patients using only cigarettes decreased from 9.2% in 2017 to 3.2% in 2021.
• The percentage of patients who both vaped and smoked fluctuated between 0.6% and 1.6%.
• The rate of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births for adolescents who did not smoke or vape (12.9%) did not differ significantly from that among adolescents who exclusively used e-cigarettes (16.8%) or those who used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (17.6%).
• The researchers found use of cigarettes only was associated with a significantly higher rate of SGA births: 24.6%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Exclusive e-cigarette use and dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes did not seem to be statistically significantly associated with SGA birth in our analysis, but this finding should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of use and the limited sample size,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Xiaozhong Wen, MD, PhD, with the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the State University of New York at Buffalo, was the corresponding author of the study. 

LIMITATIONS:

Participants may have underreported their use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes because of fears of social stigma. The researchers lacked information about vaping in the first and second trimesters, exposure to secondhand smoke, cannabis use, and diet. 

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the American Heart Association. A study coauthor has received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, the World Health Organization, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Only half of teens and young adults on teratogenic medication report being asked about sexual activity by their rheumatologist, and 38% did not know that their medication would be harmful to a fetus, according to a new survey.

While pediatric rheumatology providers may think that health screenings and contraceptive counseling are happening elsewhere, “this study suggests that a lot of patients are being missed, including those on teratogens,” noted Brittany M. Huynh, MD, MPH, a pediatric rheumatology fellow at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis. She led the study and presented the findings at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

Indiana University

For the study, Dr. Huynh and colleagues recruited patients aged 14-23 years who were assigned female at birth and were followed at pediatric rheumatology clinics affiliated with Indiana University. Participants completed a one-time survey between October 2020 and July 2022 and were asked about their sexual reproductive health experience and knowledge. Notably, all but four surveys were completed prior to the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Of responses from 108 participants, the most common diagnoses were juvenile idiopathic arthritis (52%) and systemic lupus erythematosus (16%). About one third (36%) of patients were on teratogenic medication, with the most common being methotrexate. About three fourths (76%) were White, and the average age of respondents was 16.7.

Most participants (82%) said they had been asked about sexual activity by a health care provider, but only 38% said their pediatric rheumatologist discussed this topic with them. Of the 39 patients on teratogenic medication, 54% said they had been asked about sexual activity by their pediatric rheumatologist, and only 51% said they had received teratogenicity counseling.

A larger percentage (85%) of this group reported receiving sexual activity screenings by any provider, but there was little difference in counseling about teratogenic medication.

This suggests that this type of risk counseling “is almost exclusively done by (pediatric rheumatologists), if at all,” Dr. Huynh noted during her presentation.

In total, 56% of all patients said a provider had talked to them about how to prevent pregnancy, and 20% said they had been counseled about how to get and use emergency contraception. Only 6% of patients said their pediatric rheumatologist had discussed emergency contraception during appointments.

Although sexual activity screenings were associated with current teratogen use, pregnancy prevention counseling and emergency contraceptive counseling were not associated with teratogen use or reported sexual activity.

The survey also revealed that there were gaps in knowledge about the health effects of rheumatic medication. Of the patients on teratogens, 38% did not know that their medication could harm a fetus if they became pregnant. Only 9% of patients not on teratogens correctly answered that their medication would not harm a fetus.

Previous studies have also shown that rheumatology patients do not know that their medications can be teratogenic, noted Cuoghi Edens, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Chicago, who sees both adult and pediatric patients. She was not involved with the study. The larger challenge is how to best educate patients, she said.

While hopefully a patient’s primary care provider is discussing these issues with them, these patients often see their rheumatologist more frequently and more consistently than other providers, Dr. Edens said.

UChicago Medicine

“We are sometimes the continuity of care for the patient versus their primary care, even though it should be a group effort of trying to some of these questions,” she said.

Conducting reproductive health screenings in pediatric rheumatology clinics can be difficult though, Dr. Edens noted, not only because of time constraints but also because parents often attend appointments with their child and likely have been for years. These screenings are most accurate when done one-on-one, so pivoting and removing the parents from the room can be awkward for providers, Dr. Edens said.

She advised that starting these conversations early on can be one way to ease into talking about reproductive health. In her own practice, Dr. Huynh sets aside time during appointments to speak with adolescent patients privately.

“We always discuss teratogenic medication. I always talk to them about the fact that I’m going to be doing pregnancy testing with their other screening labs because of the risks associated,” she said. “I also specifically set time aside for patients on teratogens to talk about emergency contraception and offer a prescription, if they’re interested.”

Dr. Huynh emphasized that providing easy access to emergency contraception is key. The ACR reproductive health guidelines — although geared toward adults — recommend discussing emergency contraception with patients, and Dr. Huynh advocates writing prescriptions for interested patients.

“They can fill it and have it easily accessible, so that there are no additional barriers, particularly for people who have these higher risks,” she said.

While emergency contraceptives are also available over the counter, it can be awkward for young people to ask for them, she said, and they can be expensive if not covered under insurance. Providing a prescription is one way to avoid those issues, Dr. Huynh said.

“Certainly, you have to have some parent buy-in, because if there is going to be a script, it’s probably going to be under insurance,” she said. “But in my experience, parents are happy to have it around as long as you’re talking it through with them as well as the young person.”

Dr. Huynh and Dr. Edens had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Only half of teens and young adults on teratogenic medication report being asked about sexual activity by their rheumatologist, and 38% did not know that their medication would be harmful to a fetus, according to a new survey.

While pediatric rheumatology providers may think that health screenings and contraceptive counseling are happening elsewhere, “this study suggests that a lot of patients are being missed, including those on teratogens,” noted Brittany M. Huynh, MD, MPH, a pediatric rheumatology fellow at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis. She led the study and presented the findings at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

Indiana University

For the study, Dr. Huynh and colleagues recruited patients aged 14-23 years who were assigned female at birth and were followed at pediatric rheumatology clinics affiliated with Indiana University. Participants completed a one-time survey between October 2020 and July 2022 and were asked about their sexual reproductive health experience and knowledge. Notably, all but four surveys were completed prior to the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Of responses from 108 participants, the most common diagnoses were juvenile idiopathic arthritis (52%) and systemic lupus erythematosus (16%). About one third (36%) of patients were on teratogenic medication, with the most common being methotrexate. About three fourths (76%) were White, and the average age of respondents was 16.7.

Most participants (82%) said they had been asked about sexual activity by a health care provider, but only 38% said their pediatric rheumatologist discussed this topic with them. Of the 39 patients on teratogenic medication, 54% said they had been asked about sexual activity by their pediatric rheumatologist, and only 51% said they had received teratogenicity counseling.

A larger percentage (85%) of this group reported receiving sexual activity screenings by any provider, but there was little difference in counseling about teratogenic medication.

This suggests that this type of risk counseling “is almost exclusively done by (pediatric rheumatologists), if at all,” Dr. Huynh noted during her presentation.

In total, 56% of all patients said a provider had talked to them about how to prevent pregnancy, and 20% said they had been counseled about how to get and use emergency contraception. Only 6% of patients said their pediatric rheumatologist had discussed emergency contraception during appointments.

Although sexual activity screenings were associated with current teratogen use, pregnancy prevention counseling and emergency contraceptive counseling were not associated with teratogen use or reported sexual activity.

The survey also revealed that there were gaps in knowledge about the health effects of rheumatic medication. Of the patients on teratogens, 38% did not know that their medication could harm a fetus if they became pregnant. Only 9% of patients not on teratogens correctly answered that their medication would not harm a fetus.

Previous studies have also shown that rheumatology patients do not know that their medications can be teratogenic, noted Cuoghi Edens, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Chicago, who sees both adult and pediatric patients. She was not involved with the study. The larger challenge is how to best educate patients, she said.

While hopefully a patient’s primary care provider is discussing these issues with them, these patients often see their rheumatologist more frequently and more consistently than other providers, Dr. Edens said.

UChicago Medicine

“We are sometimes the continuity of care for the patient versus their primary care, even though it should be a group effort of trying to some of these questions,” she said.

Conducting reproductive health screenings in pediatric rheumatology clinics can be difficult though, Dr. Edens noted, not only because of time constraints but also because parents often attend appointments with their child and likely have been for years. These screenings are most accurate when done one-on-one, so pivoting and removing the parents from the room can be awkward for providers, Dr. Edens said.

She advised that starting these conversations early on can be one way to ease into talking about reproductive health. In her own practice, Dr. Huynh sets aside time during appointments to speak with adolescent patients privately.

“We always discuss teratogenic medication. I always talk to them about the fact that I’m going to be doing pregnancy testing with their other screening labs because of the risks associated,” she said. “I also specifically set time aside for patients on teratogens to talk about emergency contraception and offer a prescription, if they’re interested.”

Dr. Huynh emphasized that providing easy access to emergency contraception is key. The ACR reproductive health guidelines — although geared toward adults — recommend discussing emergency contraception with patients, and Dr. Huynh advocates writing prescriptions for interested patients.

“They can fill it and have it easily accessible, so that there are no additional barriers, particularly for people who have these higher risks,” she said.

While emergency contraceptives are also available over the counter, it can be awkward for young people to ask for them, she said, and they can be expensive if not covered under insurance. Providing a prescription is one way to avoid those issues, Dr. Huynh said.

“Certainly, you have to have some parent buy-in, because if there is going to be a script, it’s probably going to be under insurance,” she said. “But in my experience, parents are happy to have it around as long as you’re talking it through with them as well as the young person.”

Dr. Huynh and Dr. Edens had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Only half of teens and young adults on teratogenic medication report being asked about sexual activity by their rheumatologist, and 38% did not know that their medication would be harmful to a fetus, according to a new survey.

While pediatric rheumatology providers may think that health screenings and contraceptive counseling are happening elsewhere, “this study suggests that a lot of patients are being missed, including those on teratogens,” noted Brittany M. Huynh, MD, MPH, a pediatric rheumatology fellow at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis. She led the study and presented the findings at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

Indiana University

For the study, Dr. Huynh and colleagues recruited patients aged 14-23 years who were assigned female at birth and were followed at pediatric rheumatology clinics affiliated with Indiana University. Participants completed a one-time survey between October 2020 and July 2022 and were asked about their sexual reproductive health experience and knowledge. Notably, all but four surveys were completed prior to the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Of responses from 108 participants, the most common diagnoses were juvenile idiopathic arthritis (52%) and systemic lupus erythematosus (16%). About one third (36%) of patients were on teratogenic medication, with the most common being methotrexate. About three fourths (76%) were White, and the average age of respondents was 16.7.

Most participants (82%) said they had been asked about sexual activity by a health care provider, but only 38% said their pediatric rheumatologist discussed this topic with them. Of the 39 patients on teratogenic medication, 54% said they had been asked about sexual activity by their pediatric rheumatologist, and only 51% said they had received teratogenicity counseling.

A larger percentage (85%) of this group reported receiving sexual activity screenings by any provider, but there was little difference in counseling about teratogenic medication.

This suggests that this type of risk counseling “is almost exclusively done by (pediatric rheumatologists), if at all,” Dr. Huynh noted during her presentation.

In total, 56% of all patients said a provider had talked to them about how to prevent pregnancy, and 20% said they had been counseled about how to get and use emergency contraception. Only 6% of patients said their pediatric rheumatologist had discussed emergency contraception during appointments.

Although sexual activity screenings were associated with current teratogen use, pregnancy prevention counseling and emergency contraceptive counseling were not associated with teratogen use or reported sexual activity.

The survey also revealed that there were gaps in knowledge about the health effects of rheumatic medication. Of the patients on teratogens, 38% did not know that their medication could harm a fetus if they became pregnant. Only 9% of patients not on teratogens correctly answered that their medication would not harm a fetus.

Previous studies have also shown that rheumatology patients do not know that their medications can be teratogenic, noted Cuoghi Edens, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Chicago, who sees both adult and pediatric patients. She was not involved with the study. The larger challenge is how to best educate patients, she said.

While hopefully a patient’s primary care provider is discussing these issues with them, these patients often see their rheumatologist more frequently and more consistently than other providers, Dr. Edens said.

UChicago Medicine

“We are sometimes the continuity of care for the patient versus their primary care, even though it should be a group effort of trying to some of these questions,” she said.

Conducting reproductive health screenings in pediatric rheumatology clinics can be difficult though, Dr. Edens noted, not only because of time constraints but also because parents often attend appointments with their child and likely have been for years. These screenings are most accurate when done one-on-one, so pivoting and removing the parents from the room can be awkward for providers, Dr. Edens said.

She advised that starting these conversations early on can be one way to ease into talking about reproductive health. In her own practice, Dr. Huynh sets aside time during appointments to speak with adolescent patients privately.

“We always discuss teratogenic medication. I always talk to them about the fact that I’m going to be doing pregnancy testing with their other screening labs because of the risks associated,” she said. “I also specifically set time aside for patients on teratogens to talk about emergency contraception and offer a prescription, if they’re interested.”

Dr. Huynh emphasized that providing easy access to emergency contraception is key. The ACR reproductive health guidelines — although geared toward adults — recommend discussing emergency contraception with patients, and Dr. Huynh advocates writing prescriptions for interested patients.

“They can fill it and have it easily accessible, so that there are no additional barriers, particularly for people who have these higher risks,” she said.

While emergency contraceptives are also available over the counter, it can be awkward for young people to ask for them, she said, and they can be expensive if not covered under insurance. Providing a prescription is one way to avoid those issues, Dr. Huynh said.

“Certainly, you have to have some parent buy-in, because if there is going to be a script, it’s probably going to be under insurance,” she said. “But in my experience, parents are happy to have it around as long as you’re talking it through with them as well as the young person.”

Dr. Huynh and Dr. Edens had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at [email protected].
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at [email protected].
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at [email protected].
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have been writing about electronic health records since the mid-1990s. While the basic concept has always been sound, I have always been (and continue to be) a critic of its implementation, which I have compared to the work of the Underpants Gnomes from the television show South Park.

You may recall that Phase One of the Gnomes’ grand scheme was to collect underpants, and Phase Three was to reap enormous profits. Unfortunately, they never quite figured out Phase Two.

Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images

EHR’s problems have run a similar course, ever since George W. Bush introduced the EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) in 2000. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” That was the ultimate goal — Phase Three, if you will — but nearly a quarter-century later, we are still struggling with Phase Two.

According to the results of a recent survey by this news organization, progress has been made, but issues with usability, reliability, and patient privacy remain.

The EHR is finally approaching the goal of universal use; 96% of physicians said in the survey they are using an EHR at least part of the time – up from 93% and 82% in the 2016 and 2012 surveys, respectively. But 56% of them continue to worry about harmful effects from incorrect or misdirected information as a result of inputs from multiple sources, and the rapid turnover of staff that is doing the inputting. Many doctors worry about the potential for incorrect medications and “rule out” diagnoses getting embedded in some patients’ records and undermining future care.

The lack of information sharing among different EHR systems has been the technology’s greatest unmet promise, according to the survey. A lack of interoperability was cited as the most common reason for switching EHR systems. Other reasons included difficulties in clinical documentation and extracting data for quality reporting, as well as the inability to merge inpatient and outpatient records.

A clear majority (72%) felt EHR systems are getting easier to use. The recent decrease in government mandates has freed vendors to work on improving ease of documentation and information retrieval. The incorporation of virtual assistants and other artificial intelligence–based features (as I discussed in two recent columns) have also contributed to improved overall usability. Some newer applications even allow users to build workarounds to compensate for inherent deficiencies in the system.

Physicians tended to be most praiseworthy of functions related to electronic prescribing and retrieval of individual patient data. They felt that much more improvement was needed in helpful prompt features, internal messaging, and communications from patients.

The survey found that 38% of physicians “always” or “often” copy and paste information in patient charts, with another 37% doing so “occasionally.” Noting some of the problems inherent in copy and paste, such as note bloat, internal inconsistencies, error propagation, and documentation in the wrong patient chart, the survey authors suggest that EHR developers could help by shifting away from timelines that appear as one long note. They could also add functionality to allow new information to be displayed as updates on a digital chart.

Improvement is also needed in the way the EHR affects patient interactions, according to the survey results. Physicians are still often forced to click to a different screen to find lab results, another for current medications, and still another for past notes, all while trying to communicate with the patient. Such issues are likely to decrease in the next few years as doctors gain the ability to give voice commands to AI-based system add-ons to obtain this information.

Security concerns seem to be decreasing. In this year’s survey, nearly half of all physicians voiced no EHR privacy problems or concerns, even though a recent review of medical literature concluded that security risks remain meaningful. Those who did have privacy concerns were mostly worried about hackers and other unauthorized access to patient information.

The survey found that around 40% of EHR systems are not using patient portals to post lab results, diagnoses and procedure notes, or prescriptions. However, other physicians complained that their systems were too prompt in posting results, so that patients often received them before the doctor did. This is certainly another area where improvement at both extremes is necessary.

Other areas in which physicians saw a need for improvement were in system reliability, user training, and ongoing customer service. And among the dwindling ranks of physicians with no EHR experience, the most common reasons given for refusing to invest in an EHR system were affordability and interference with the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I have been writing about electronic health records since the mid-1990s. While the basic concept has always been sound, I have always been (and continue to be) a critic of its implementation, which I have compared to the work of the Underpants Gnomes from the television show South Park.

You may recall that Phase One of the Gnomes’ grand scheme was to collect underpants, and Phase Three was to reap enormous profits. Unfortunately, they never quite figured out Phase Two.

Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images

EHR’s problems have run a similar course, ever since George W. Bush introduced the EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) in 2000. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” That was the ultimate goal — Phase Three, if you will — but nearly a quarter-century later, we are still struggling with Phase Two.

According to the results of a recent survey by this news organization, progress has been made, but issues with usability, reliability, and patient privacy remain.

The EHR is finally approaching the goal of universal use; 96% of physicians said in the survey they are using an EHR at least part of the time – up from 93% and 82% in the 2016 and 2012 surveys, respectively. But 56% of them continue to worry about harmful effects from incorrect or misdirected information as a result of inputs from multiple sources, and the rapid turnover of staff that is doing the inputting. Many doctors worry about the potential for incorrect medications and “rule out” diagnoses getting embedded in some patients’ records and undermining future care.

The lack of information sharing among different EHR systems has been the technology’s greatest unmet promise, according to the survey. A lack of interoperability was cited as the most common reason for switching EHR systems. Other reasons included difficulties in clinical documentation and extracting data for quality reporting, as well as the inability to merge inpatient and outpatient records.

A clear majority (72%) felt EHR systems are getting easier to use. The recent decrease in government mandates has freed vendors to work on improving ease of documentation and information retrieval. The incorporation of virtual assistants and other artificial intelligence–based features (as I discussed in two recent columns) have also contributed to improved overall usability. Some newer applications even allow users to build workarounds to compensate for inherent deficiencies in the system.

Physicians tended to be most praiseworthy of functions related to electronic prescribing and retrieval of individual patient data. They felt that much more improvement was needed in helpful prompt features, internal messaging, and communications from patients.

The survey found that 38% of physicians “always” or “often” copy and paste information in patient charts, with another 37% doing so “occasionally.” Noting some of the problems inherent in copy and paste, such as note bloat, internal inconsistencies, error propagation, and documentation in the wrong patient chart, the survey authors suggest that EHR developers could help by shifting away from timelines that appear as one long note. They could also add functionality to allow new information to be displayed as updates on a digital chart.

Improvement is also needed in the way the EHR affects patient interactions, according to the survey results. Physicians are still often forced to click to a different screen to find lab results, another for current medications, and still another for past notes, all while trying to communicate with the patient. Such issues are likely to decrease in the next few years as doctors gain the ability to give voice commands to AI-based system add-ons to obtain this information.

Security concerns seem to be decreasing. In this year’s survey, nearly half of all physicians voiced no EHR privacy problems or concerns, even though a recent review of medical literature concluded that security risks remain meaningful. Those who did have privacy concerns were mostly worried about hackers and other unauthorized access to patient information.

The survey found that around 40% of EHR systems are not using patient portals to post lab results, diagnoses and procedure notes, or prescriptions. However, other physicians complained that their systems were too prompt in posting results, so that patients often received them before the doctor did. This is certainly another area where improvement at both extremes is necessary.

Other areas in which physicians saw a need for improvement were in system reliability, user training, and ongoing customer service. And among the dwindling ranks of physicians with no EHR experience, the most common reasons given for refusing to invest in an EHR system were affordability and interference with the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I have been writing about electronic health records since the mid-1990s. While the basic concept has always been sound, I have always been (and continue to be) a critic of its implementation, which I have compared to the work of the Underpants Gnomes from the television show South Park.

You may recall that Phase One of the Gnomes’ grand scheme was to collect underpants, and Phase Three was to reap enormous profits. Unfortunately, they never quite figured out Phase Two.

Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images

EHR’s problems have run a similar course, ever since George W. Bush introduced the EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) in 2000. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” That was the ultimate goal — Phase Three, if you will — but nearly a quarter-century later, we are still struggling with Phase Two.

According to the results of a recent survey by this news organization, progress has been made, but issues with usability, reliability, and patient privacy remain.

The EHR is finally approaching the goal of universal use; 96% of physicians said in the survey they are using an EHR at least part of the time – up from 93% and 82% in the 2016 and 2012 surveys, respectively. But 56% of them continue to worry about harmful effects from incorrect or misdirected information as a result of inputs from multiple sources, and the rapid turnover of staff that is doing the inputting. Many doctors worry about the potential for incorrect medications and “rule out” diagnoses getting embedded in some patients’ records and undermining future care.

The lack of information sharing among different EHR systems has been the technology’s greatest unmet promise, according to the survey. A lack of interoperability was cited as the most common reason for switching EHR systems. Other reasons included difficulties in clinical documentation and extracting data for quality reporting, as well as the inability to merge inpatient and outpatient records.

A clear majority (72%) felt EHR systems are getting easier to use. The recent decrease in government mandates has freed vendors to work on improving ease of documentation and information retrieval. The incorporation of virtual assistants and other artificial intelligence–based features (as I discussed in two recent columns) have also contributed to improved overall usability. Some newer applications even allow users to build workarounds to compensate for inherent deficiencies in the system.

Physicians tended to be most praiseworthy of functions related to electronic prescribing and retrieval of individual patient data. They felt that much more improvement was needed in helpful prompt features, internal messaging, and communications from patients.

The survey found that 38% of physicians “always” or “often” copy and paste information in patient charts, with another 37% doing so “occasionally.” Noting some of the problems inherent in copy and paste, such as note bloat, internal inconsistencies, error propagation, and documentation in the wrong patient chart, the survey authors suggest that EHR developers could help by shifting away from timelines that appear as one long note. They could also add functionality to allow new information to be displayed as updates on a digital chart.

Improvement is also needed in the way the EHR affects patient interactions, according to the survey results. Physicians are still often forced to click to a different screen to find lab results, another for current medications, and still another for past notes, all while trying to communicate with the patient. Such issues are likely to decrease in the next few years as doctors gain the ability to give voice commands to AI-based system add-ons to obtain this information.

Security concerns seem to be decreasing. In this year’s survey, nearly half of all physicians voiced no EHR privacy problems or concerns, even though a recent review of medical literature concluded that security risks remain meaningful. Those who did have privacy concerns were mostly worried about hackers and other unauthorized access to patient information.

The survey found that around 40% of EHR systems are not using patient portals to post lab results, diagnoses and procedure notes, or prescriptions. However, other physicians complained that their systems were too prompt in posting results, so that patients often received them before the doctor did. This is certainly another area where improvement at both extremes is necessary.

Other areas in which physicians saw a need for improvement were in system reliability, user training, and ongoing customer service. And among the dwindling ranks of physicians with no EHR experience, the most common reasons given for refusing to invest in an EHR system were affordability and interference with the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].