MDedge Pediatrics

An experimental topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor showed superior efficacy to vehicle in patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) and plaque psoriasis, results from a phase 2a study showed.

PDE4 inhibitors are a promising therapeutic target for inflammatory diseases because “they can increase cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels and subsequently reduce the production of proinflammatory cytokines,” lead study author Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, of the dermatology department at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote. The paper was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Currently Available Treatments

For plaque psoriasis, the FDA approved the topical PDE4 inhibitor roflumilast in 2022. The oral PDE4 inhibitor apremilast has shown to be effective for plaque psoriasis and is well tolerated, and “it has been associated with gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) such as nausea and diarrhea,” the researchers wrote.

For AD, crisaborole is the only approved topical PDE4 treatment, and it is associated with application site burning and stinging, they wrote.

An Experimental Alternative

The new study tested a topical PDE4 inhibitor known as PF-07038124, which is being developed by Pfizer. It is designed to be “a potent, oxaborole-based PDE4 inhibitor [that shows] immunomodulatory activity in T-cell–based assays, contributing to inhibition of [interleukin]-4 and IL-13; thus, it could provide therapeutic benefit in the treatment of AD and plaque psoriasis,” the authors wrote.

The phase 2a study was conducted from December 21, 2020, to August 18, 2021. Researchers at 34 sites in four countries randomized 104 patients with mild to moderate AD (70) or plaque psoriasis (34) to receive PF-07038124 as a 0.001% topical ointment or a vehicle only once daily for 6 weeks.

The primary end point was the percent change from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score among patients with AD and in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score among patients with plaque psoriasis at week 6. Safety measures of interest included treatment-emergent adverse events.

Overall, the mean age of the 104 patients was 43 years, 52.9%, were women, 3.8% were Asian, 12.5% were Black, and 83.7% were White. Most had moderate disease.

At week 6 in patients with AD, the PF-07038124 group showed statistically significantly greater improvement in the EASI total score, compared with vehicle group (−74.9% vs −35.5% respectively; least squares mean [LSM] difference, −39.4%; 90% CI, −58.8% to−20.1%]; P < .001).

Similarly, at week 6 in patients with plaque psoriasis, the PF-07038124 group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in the PASI total score, compared with the vehicle group (LSM, −4.8; 90% CI, −6.2 to −3.4] vs 0.1; 90% CI, −1.5 to 1.7), for a difference of −4.9; 90% CI, −7.0 to −2.8; P < .001.

In safety outcomes, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16 people receiving PF-07038124 and 26 people receiving a vehicle. The treatment-related adverse events were reported only in the vehicle groups across all indications, while no patients in the PF-07038124 groups experienced pain or skin reactions at the application sites.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the trial, including its small size and the 6-week treatment period. “Unlike crisaborole, topical PF-07038124 was not associated with application site burning and stinging,” they noted. “To confirm persistence of efficacy and the safety profile of PF-07038124, long-term data should be collected in larger studies.”

Pfizer supported the study. Dr. Eichenfield reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer during the conduct of the study. He also has received grant support from, is consultant to, and/or is a member of the advisory board for many other pharmaceutical companies. Several other study authors reported similar disclosures.

An experimental topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor showed superior efficacy to vehicle in patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) and plaque psoriasis, results from a phase 2a study showed.

PDE4 inhibitors are a promising therapeutic target for inflammatory diseases because “they can increase cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels and subsequently reduce the production of proinflammatory cytokines,” lead study author Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, of the dermatology department at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote. The paper was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Currently Available Treatments

For plaque psoriasis, the FDA approved the topical PDE4 inhibitor roflumilast in 2022. The oral PDE4 inhibitor apremilast has shown to be effective for plaque psoriasis and is well tolerated, and “it has been associated with gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) such as nausea and diarrhea,” the researchers wrote.

For AD, crisaborole is the only approved topical PDE4 treatment, and it is associated with application site burning and stinging, they wrote.

An Experimental Alternative

The new study tested a topical PDE4 inhibitor known as PF-07038124, which is being developed by Pfizer. It is designed to be “a potent, oxaborole-based PDE4 inhibitor [that shows] immunomodulatory activity in T-cell–based assays, contributing to inhibition of [interleukin]-4 and IL-13; thus, it could provide therapeutic benefit in the treatment of AD and plaque psoriasis,” the authors wrote.

The phase 2a study was conducted from December 21, 2020, to August 18, 2021. Researchers at 34 sites in four countries randomized 104 patients with mild to moderate AD (70) or plaque psoriasis (34) to receive PF-07038124 as a 0.001% topical ointment or a vehicle only once daily for 6 weeks.

The primary end point was the percent change from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score among patients with AD and in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score among patients with plaque psoriasis at week 6. Safety measures of interest included treatment-emergent adverse events.

Overall, the mean age of the 104 patients was 43 years, 52.9%, were women, 3.8% were Asian, 12.5% were Black, and 83.7% were White. Most had moderate disease.

At week 6 in patients with AD, the PF-07038124 group showed statistically significantly greater improvement in the EASI total score, compared with vehicle group (−74.9% vs −35.5% respectively; least squares mean [LSM] difference, −39.4%; 90% CI, −58.8% to−20.1%]; P < .001).

Similarly, at week 6 in patients with plaque psoriasis, the PF-07038124 group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in the PASI total score, compared with the vehicle group (LSM, −4.8; 90% CI, −6.2 to −3.4] vs 0.1; 90% CI, −1.5 to 1.7), for a difference of −4.9; 90% CI, −7.0 to −2.8; P < .001.

In safety outcomes, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16 people receiving PF-07038124 and 26 people receiving a vehicle. The treatment-related adverse events were reported only in the vehicle groups across all indications, while no patients in the PF-07038124 groups experienced pain or skin reactions at the application sites.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the trial, including its small size and the 6-week treatment period. “Unlike crisaborole, topical PF-07038124 was not associated with application site burning and stinging,” they noted. “To confirm persistence of efficacy and the safety profile of PF-07038124, long-term data should be collected in larger studies.”

Pfizer supported the study. Dr. Eichenfield reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer during the conduct of the study. He also has received grant support from, is consultant to, and/or is a member of the advisory board for many other pharmaceutical companies. Several other study authors reported similar disclosures.

An experimental topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor showed superior efficacy to vehicle in patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) and plaque psoriasis, results from a phase 2a study showed.

PDE4 inhibitors are a promising therapeutic target for inflammatory diseases because “they can increase cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels and subsequently reduce the production of proinflammatory cytokines,” lead study author Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, of the dermatology department at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote. The paper was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Currently Available Treatments

For plaque psoriasis, the FDA approved the topical PDE4 inhibitor roflumilast in 2022. The oral PDE4 inhibitor apremilast has shown to be effective for plaque psoriasis and is well tolerated, and “it has been associated with gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) such as nausea and diarrhea,” the researchers wrote.

For AD, crisaborole is the only approved topical PDE4 treatment, and it is associated with application site burning and stinging, they wrote.

An Experimental Alternative

The new study tested a topical PDE4 inhibitor known as PF-07038124, which is being developed by Pfizer. It is designed to be “a potent, oxaborole-based PDE4 inhibitor [that shows] immunomodulatory activity in T-cell–based assays, contributing to inhibition of [interleukin]-4 and IL-13; thus, it could provide therapeutic benefit in the treatment of AD and plaque psoriasis,” the authors wrote.

The phase 2a study was conducted from December 21, 2020, to August 18, 2021. Researchers at 34 sites in four countries randomized 104 patients with mild to moderate AD (70) or plaque psoriasis (34) to receive PF-07038124 as a 0.001% topical ointment or a vehicle only once daily for 6 weeks.

The primary end point was the percent change from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score among patients with AD and in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score among patients with plaque psoriasis at week 6. Safety measures of interest included treatment-emergent adverse events.

Overall, the mean age of the 104 patients was 43 years, 52.9%, were women, 3.8% were Asian, 12.5% were Black, and 83.7% were White. Most had moderate disease.

At week 6 in patients with AD, the PF-07038124 group showed statistically significantly greater improvement in the EASI total score, compared with vehicle group (−74.9% vs −35.5% respectively; least squares mean [LSM] difference, −39.4%; 90% CI, −58.8% to−20.1%]; P < .001).

Similarly, at week 6 in patients with plaque psoriasis, the PF-07038124 group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in the PASI total score, compared with the vehicle group (LSM, −4.8; 90% CI, −6.2 to −3.4] vs 0.1; 90% CI, −1.5 to 1.7), for a difference of −4.9; 90% CI, −7.0 to −2.8; P < .001.

In safety outcomes, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16 people receiving PF-07038124 and 26 people receiving a vehicle. The treatment-related adverse events were reported only in the vehicle groups across all indications, while no patients in the PF-07038124 groups experienced pain or skin reactions at the application sites.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the trial, including its small size and the 6-week treatment period. “Unlike crisaborole, topical PF-07038124 was not associated with application site burning and stinging,” they noted. “To confirm persistence of efficacy and the safety profile of PF-07038124, long-term data should be collected in larger studies.”

Pfizer supported the study. Dr. Eichenfield reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer during the conduct of the study. He also has received grant support from, is consultant to, and/or is a member of the advisory board for many other pharmaceutical companies. Several other study authors reported similar disclosures.

TOPLINE:

A high-quality, low-carbohydrate diet (LCD), rich in plant-based proteins and healthy fats, was associated with slower weight gain, while a lower-quality LCD was associated with the reverse.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prospective cohort study included 123,332 participants from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS, 1986-2010 and 1991-2015) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS, 1986-2018).
• Diets assessed by questionnaires were categorized as: (1) total LCD (TLCD), emphasizing overall lower carbohydrate intake; (2) animal-based LCD (ALCD), emphasizing animal-sourced protein and fat; (3) vegetable-based LCD (VLCD), emphasizing plant-sourced protein and fat; (4) a healthy LCD (HLCD), emphasizing less refined carbohydrates, more plant protein, and healthy fat; and (5) unhealthy LCD (ULCD), emphasizing less healthful carbohydrates, more animal protein, and unhealthy fat.
• The primary outcome was 4-year reported changes in body weight, divided into quintiles, with Q3 = no change, Q1 = largest decrease, and Q5 = largest increase.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants gained a mean of 1.3 kg over each 4-year interval, with gains of 0.8, 1.8, and 0.5 kg for NHS, NHSII, and HPFS, respectively.
• After adjustment for baseline and concomitant changes in lifestyle and demographic factors, compared with participants with no change in the TLCD score over 4-year intervals, those with the largest increase (Q5) in the TLCD score did not have significant weight change (0.03 kg), while those with the largest decrease (Q1) in the TLCD score had significantly less weight gain (−0.20 kg).
• Similarly, those following a VLCD with Q5 change, compared with those with stable Q3 adherence, experienced 0.21 kg less weight gain, and those with Q1 change experienced 0.17 kg less weight gain, both significant.
• Adhering to an ALCD was associated with more weight gain over time, with each 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in ALCD associated with a significant 0.13 kg more weight gain over 4-year intervals.
• Opposite results were seen for ULCD and HLCD scores, where a 1-SD increase in HLCD and ULCD was associated with a significant 0.36 kg weight loss and 0.39 kg weight gain, respectively, over 4-year intervals.
• The associations were stronger among individuals with baseline body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m².

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this cohort study underscore the importance of diet quality within LCD patterns for weight management… Overall, the study findings argue against the sole focus of macronutrient quantity for weight management and suggest the crucial role of nutrient quality in maintaining a healthy body weight.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Binkai Liu, MS, of the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues. 

The findings were published online in  JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

• Self-reported data.
• Observational study, potential for residual confounding.
• No body composition measurement.
• Study population was mainly White health professionals.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by research grants from the National Institutes of Health, and one coauthor is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A high-quality, low-carbohydrate diet (LCD), rich in plant-based proteins and healthy fats, was associated with slower weight gain, while a lower-quality LCD was associated with the reverse.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prospective cohort study included 123,332 participants from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS, 1986-2010 and 1991-2015) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS, 1986-2018).
• Diets assessed by questionnaires were categorized as: (1) total LCD (TLCD), emphasizing overall lower carbohydrate intake; (2) animal-based LCD (ALCD), emphasizing animal-sourced protein and fat; (3) vegetable-based LCD (VLCD), emphasizing plant-sourced protein and fat; (4) a healthy LCD (HLCD), emphasizing less refined carbohydrates, more plant protein, and healthy fat; and (5) unhealthy LCD (ULCD), emphasizing less healthful carbohydrates, more animal protein, and unhealthy fat.
• The primary outcome was 4-year reported changes in body weight, divided into quintiles, with Q3 = no change, Q1 = largest decrease, and Q5 = largest increase.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants gained a mean of 1.3 kg over each 4-year interval, with gains of 0.8, 1.8, and 0.5 kg for NHS, NHSII, and HPFS, respectively.
• After adjustment for baseline and concomitant changes in lifestyle and demographic factors, compared with participants with no change in the TLCD score over 4-year intervals, those with the largest increase (Q5) in the TLCD score did not have significant weight change (0.03 kg), while those with the largest decrease (Q1) in the TLCD score had significantly less weight gain (−0.20 kg).
• Similarly, those following a VLCD with Q5 change, compared with those with stable Q3 adherence, experienced 0.21 kg less weight gain, and those with Q1 change experienced 0.17 kg less weight gain, both significant.
• Adhering to an ALCD was associated with more weight gain over time, with each 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in ALCD associated with a significant 0.13 kg more weight gain over 4-year intervals.
• Opposite results were seen for ULCD and HLCD scores, where a 1-SD increase in HLCD and ULCD was associated with a significant 0.36 kg weight loss and 0.39 kg weight gain, respectively, over 4-year intervals.
• The associations were stronger among individuals with baseline body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m².

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this cohort study underscore the importance of diet quality within LCD patterns for weight management… Overall, the study findings argue against the sole focus of macronutrient quantity for weight management and suggest the crucial role of nutrient quality in maintaining a healthy body weight.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Binkai Liu, MS, of the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues. 

The findings were published online in  JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

• Self-reported data.
• Observational study, potential for residual confounding.
• No body composition measurement.
• Study population was mainly White health professionals.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by research grants from the National Institutes of Health, and one coauthor is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A high-quality, low-carbohydrate diet (LCD), rich in plant-based proteins and healthy fats, was associated with slower weight gain, while a lower-quality LCD was associated with the reverse.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prospective cohort study included 123,332 participants from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS, 1986-2010 and 1991-2015) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS, 1986-2018).
• Diets assessed by questionnaires were categorized as: (1) total LCD (TLCD), emphasizing overall lower carbohydrate intake; (2) animal-based LCD (ALCD), emphasizing animal-sourced protein and fat; (3) vegetable-based LCD (VLCD), emphasizing plant-sourced protein and fat; (4) a healthy LCD (HLCD), emphasizing less refined carbohydrates, more plant protein, and healthy fat; and (5) unhealthy LCD (ULCD), emphasizing less healthful carbohydrates, more animal protein, and unhealthy fat.
• The primary outcome was 4-year reported changes in body weight, divided into quintiles, with Q3 = no change, Q1 = largest decrease, and Q5 = largest increase.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants gained a mean of 1.3 kg over each 4-year interval, with gains of 0.8, 1.8, and 0.5 kg for NHS, NHSII, and HPFS, respectively.
• After adjustment for baseline and concomitant changes in lifestyle and demographic factors, compared with participants with no change in the TLCD score over 4-year intervals, those with the largest increase (Q5) in the TLCD score did not have significant weight change (0.03 kg), while those with the largest decrease (Q1) in the TLCD score had significantly less weight gain (−0.20 kg).
• Similarly, those following a VLCD with Q5 change, compared with those with stable Q3 adherence, experienced 0.21 kg less weight gain, and those with Q1 change experienced 0.17 kg less weight gain, both significant.
• Adhering to an ALCD was associated with more weight gain over time, with each 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in ALCD associated with a significant 0.13 kg more weight gain over 4-year intervals.
• Opposite results were seen for ULCD and HLCD scores, where a 1-SD increase in HLCD and ULCD was associated with a significant 0.36 kg weight loss and 0.39 kg weight gain, respectively, over 4-year intervals.
• The associations were stronger among individuals with baseline body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m².

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this cohort study underscore the importance of diet quality within LCD patterns for weight management… Overall, the study findings argue against the sole focus of macronutrient quantity for weight management and suggest the crucial role of nutrient quality in maintaining a healthy body weight.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Binkai Liu, MS, of the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues. 

The findings were published online in  JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

• Self-reported data.
• Observational study, potential for residual confounding.
• No body composition measurement.
• Study population was mainly White health professionals.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by research grants from the National Institutes of Health, and one coauthor is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule opens the door for physicians in California and Texas to take advantage of student loan forgiveness, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.

Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.

But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.

Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.

Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.

The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.

The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.

Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.

Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.

With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.

California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.

Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule opens the door for physicians in California and Texas to take advantage of student loan forgiveness, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.

Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.

But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.

Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.

Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.

The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.

The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.

Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.

Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.

With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.

California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.

Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule opens the door for physicians in California and Texas to take advantage of student loan forgiveness, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.

Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.

But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.

Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.

Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.

The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.

The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.

Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.

Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.

With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.

California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.

Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With so many treatment options available for atopic dermatitis (AD) and more in the pipeline, one common question Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, hears from his fellow dermatologists is: How do I choose the right therapy for my patients?

“There isn’t going to be a one-size-fits-all approach, and it may be impossible to differentiate, given that these agents are not likely to be studied head-to-head,” Dr. Chovatiya, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Dr. Chovatiya

He shared a list of factors to consider when engaged in shared decision-making with patients about their AD treatment options. These include:

• Severity of disease (mild vs moderate vs severe).
• Extent of disease (low vs high body surface area).
• Rapidity of drug onset (hours vs days vs weeks).
• Depth of response based on different endpoints such as itch and number of lesions.
• Long-term efficacy (durability on treatment vs off treatment).
• Adverse events (cutaneous vs systemic).
• Black box warnings (present vs absent).
• Tolerance (selective areas vs the entire skin).
• Vehicle (ointment vs cream).
• Patient preference. “This may be the biggest driver; what do patients want?” Dr. Chovatiya said.
• Access to the drug. Is it easily obtainable for the patient?

He concluded his remarks by posing a question to attendees: “Are we closer to living in a topical steroid–free world for AD? Is that what we want?” he asked. “I wholeheartedly say that’s what we’ve been working toward all these years, and we should keep up the good fight. We have more data for targeted therapy to treat very specific disease with very specific outcomes and endpoints, because I think that’s [what] we all dream about in dermatology.”

Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

With so many treatment options available for atopic dermatitis (AD) and more in the pipeline, one common question Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, hears from his fellow dermatologists is: How do I choose the right therapy for my patients?

“There isn’t going to be a one-size-fits-all approach, and it may be impossible to differentiate, given that these agents are not likely to be studied head-to-head,” Dr. Chovatiya, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Dr. Chovatiya

He shared a list of factors to consider when engaged in shared decision-making with patients about their AD treatment options. These include:

• Severity of disease (mild vs moderate vs severe).
• Extent of disease (low vs high body surface area).
• Rapidity of drug onset (hours vs days vs weeks).
• Depth of response based on different endpoints such as itch and number of lesions.
• Long-term efficacy (durability on treatment vs off treatment).
• Adverse events (cutaneous vs systemic).
• Black box warnings (present vs absent).
• Tolerance (selective areas vs the entire skin).
• Vehicle (ointment vs cream).
• Patient preference. “This may be the biggest driver; what do patients want?” Dr. Chovatiya said.
• Access to the drug. Is it easily obtainable for the patient?

He concluded his remarks by posing a question to attendees: “Are we closer to living in a topical steroid–free world for AD? Is that what we want?” he asked. “I wholeheartedly say that’s what we’ve been working toward all these years, and we should keep up the good fight. We have more data for targeted therapy to treat very specific disease with very specific outcomes and endpoints, because I think that’s [what] we all dream about in dermatology.”

Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

With so many treatment options available for atopic dermatitis (AD) and more in the pipeline, one common question Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, hears from his fellow dermatologists is: How do I choose the right therapy for my patients?

“There isn’t going to be a one-size-fits-all approach, and it may be impossible to differentiate, given that these agents are not likely to be studied head-to-head,” Dr. Chovatiya, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Dr. Chovatiya

He shared a list of factors to consider when engaged in shared decision-making with patients about their AD treatment options. These include:

• Severity of disease (mild vs moderate vs severe).
• Extent of disease (low vs high body surface area).
• Rapidity of drug onset (hours vs days vs weeks).
• Depth of response based on different endpoints such as itch and number of lesions.
• Long-term efficacy (durability on treatment vs off treatment).
• Adverse events (cutaneous vs systemic).
• Black box warnings (present vs absent).
• Tolerance (selective areas vs the entire skin).
• Vehicle (ointment vs cream).
• Patient preference. “This may be the biggest driver; what do patients want?” Dr. Chovatiya said.
• Access to the drug. Is it easily obtainable for the patient?

He concluded his remarks by posing a question to attendees: “Are we closer to living in a topical steroid–free world for AD? Is that what we want?” he asked. “I wholeheartedly say that’s what we’ve been working toward all these years, and we should keep up the good fight. We have more data for targeted therapy to treat very specific disease with very specific outcomes and endpoints, because I think that’s [what] we all dream about in dermatology.”

Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

Walking is a simple, cost-free form of exercise that benefits physical, social, and mental health in many ways. Several clinical trials have shown that walking regularly is associated with a lower risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, and having a higher daily step count is linked to a decreased risk for premature death.

Walking and Diabetes

In recent years, the link between walking speed and the risk for multiple health problems has sparked keen interest. Data suggest that a faster walking pace may have a greater physiological response and may be associated with more favorable health advantages than a slow walking pace. A previous meta-analysis of eight cohort studies suggested that individuals in the fastest walking-pace category (median = 5.6 km/h) had a 44% lower risk for stroke than those in the slowest walking-pace category (median = 1.6 km/h). The risk for the former decreased by 13% for every 1 km/h increment in baseline walking pace.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the most common metabolic diseases in the world. People with this type of diabetes have an increased risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications and a shorter life expectancy. Approximately 537 million adults are estimated to be living with diabetes worldwide, and this number is expected to reach 783 million by 2045.

Physical activity is an essential component of T2D prevention programs and can favorably affect blood sugar control. A meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that being physically active was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of acquiring T2D in the general population, and regular walking was associated with a 15% reduction in the risk of developing T2D.

However, no studies have investigated the link between different walking speeds and the risk for T2D. A team from the Research Center at the Semnan University of Medical Sciences in Iran carried out a systematic review of the association between walking speed and the risk of developing T2D in adults; this review was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

10 Cohort Studies

This systematic review used publications (1999-2022) available in the usual data sources (PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) based on different walking speeds. The researchers rated the credibility of subgroup differences and the certainty of evidence using the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification ANalyses (ICEMAN) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively.

Of the 508,121 potential participants, 18,410 adults from 10 prospective cohort studies conducted in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom were deemed eligible. The proportion of women was between 52% and 73%, depending on the cohort. Follow-up duration varied from 3 to 11.1 years (median, 8 years).

Five cohort studies measured walking speed using stopwatch testing, while the other five used self-assessed questionnaires. To define cases of T2D, seven studies used objective methods such as blood glucose measurement or linkage with medical records, and in three cohorts, self-assessment questionnaires were used (these were checked against patient records). All studies controlled age, sex, and tobacco consumption in the multivariate analyses, and some controlled just alcohol consumption, blood pressure, total physical activity volume, body mass index, time spent walking or daily step count, and a family history of diabetes.

The Right Speed

The authors first categorized walking speed into four prespecified levels: Easy or casual (< 2 mph or 3.2 km/h), average or normal (2-3 mph or 3.2-4.8 km/h), fairly brisk (3-4 mph or 4.8-6.4 km/h), and very brisk or brisk/striding (> 4 mph or > 6.4 km/h).

Four cohort studies with 6,520 cases of T2D among 160,321 participants reported information on average or normal walking. Participants with average or normal walking were at a 15% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.85 [95% CI, 0.70-1.00]; RD = 0.86 [1.72-0]). Ten cohort studies with 18,410 cases among 508,121 participants reported information on fairly brisk walking. Those with fairly brisk walking were at a 24% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.76 [0.65-0.87]; I2 = 90%; RD = 1.38 [2.01-0.75]).

There was no significant or credible subgroup difference by adjustment for the total physical activity or time spent walking per day. The dose-response analysis suggested that the risk for T2D decreased significantly at a walking speed of 4 km/h and above.

Study Limitations

This meta-analysis has strengths that may increase the generalizability of its results. The researchers included cohort studies, which allowed them to consider the temporal sequence of exposure and outcome. Cohort studies are less affected by recall and selection biases compared with retrospective case–control studies, which increase the likelihood of causality. The researchers also assessed the credibility of subgroup differences using the recently developed ICEMAN tool, calculated both relative and absolute risks, and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Some shortcomings must be considered. Most of the studies included in the present review were rated as having a serious risk for bias, with the most important biases resulting from inadequate adjustment for potential confounders and the methods used for walking speed assessment and diagnosis of T2D. In addition, the findings could have been subject to reverse causality bias because participants with faster walking speed are more likely to perform more physical activity and have better cardiorespiratory fitness, greater muscle mass, and better health status. However, the subgroup analyses of fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking indicated that there were no significant subgroup differences by follow-up duration and that the significant inverse associations remained stable in the subgroup of cohort studies with a follow-up duration of > 10 years.

The authors concluded that “the present meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested that fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking, independent of the total volume of physical activity or time spent walking per day, may be associated with a lower risk of T2D in adults. While current strategies to increase total walking time are beneficial, it may also be reasonable to encourage people to walk at faster speeds to further increase the health benefits of walking.”

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Walking is a simple, cost-free form of exercise that benefits physical, social, and mental health in many ways. Several clinical trials have shown that walking regularly is associated with a lower risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, and having a higher daily step count is linked to a decreased risk for premature death.

Walking and Diabetes

In recent years, the link between walking speed and the risk for multiple health problems has sparked keen interest. Data suggest that a faster walking pace may have a greater physiological response and may be associated with more favorable health advantages than a slow walking pace. A previous meta-analysis of eight cohort studies suggested that individuals in the fastest walking-pace category (median = 5.6 km/h) had a 44% lower risk for stroke than those in the slowest walking-pace category (median = 1.6 km/h). The risk for the former decreased by 13% for every 1 km/h increment in baseline walking pace.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the most common metabolic diseases in the world. People with this type of diabetes have an increased risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications and a shorter life expectancy. Approximately 537 million adults are estimated to be living with diabetes worldwide, and this number is expected to reach 783 million by 2045.

Physical activity is an essential component of T2D prevention programs and can favorably affect blood sugar control. A meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that being physically active was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of acquiring T2D in the general population, and regular walking was associated with a 15% reduction in the risk of developing T2D.

However, no studies have investigated the link between different walking speeds and the risk for T2D. A team from the Research Center at the Semnan University of Medical Sciences in Iran carried out a systematic review of the association between walking speed and the risk of developing T2D in adults; this review was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

10 Cohort Studies

This systematic review used publications (1999-2022) available in the usual data sources (PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) based on different walking speeds. The researchers rated the credibility of subgroup differences and the certainty of evidence using the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification ANalyses (ICEMAN) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively.

Of the 508,121 potential participants, 18,410 adults from 10 prospective cohort studies conducted in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom were deemed eligible. The proportion of women was between 52% and 73%, depending on the cohort. Follow-up duration varied from 3 to 11.1 years (median, 8 years).

Five cohort studies measured walking speed using stopwatch testing, while the other five used self-assessed questionnaires. To define cases of T2D, seven studies used objective methods such as blood glucose measurement or linkage with medical records, and in three cohorts, self-assessment questionnaires were used (these were checked against patient records). All studies controlled age, sex, and tobacco consumption in the multivariate analyses, and some controlled just alcohol consumption, blood pressure, total physical activity volume, body mass index, time spent walking or daily step count, and a family history of diabetes.

The Right Speed

The authors first categorized walking speed into four prespecified levels: Easy or casual (< 2 mph or 3.2 km/h), average or normal (2-3 mph or 3.2-4.8 km/h), fairly brisk (3-4 mph or 4.8-6.4 km/h), and very brisk or brisk/striding (> 4 mph or > 6.4 km/h).

Four cohort studies with 6,520 cases of T2D among 160,321 participants reported information on average or normal walking. Participants with average or normal walking were at a 15% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.85 [95% CI, 0.70-1.00]; RD = 0.86 [1.72-0]). Ten cohort studies with 18,410 cases among 508,121 participants reported information on fairly brisk walking. Those with fairly brisk walking were at a 24% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.76 [0.65-0.87]; I2 = 90%; RD = 1.38 [2.01-0.75]).

There was no significant or credible subgroup difference by adjustment for the total physical activity or time spent walking per day. The dose-response analysis suggested that the risk for T2D decreased significantly at a walking speed of 4 km/h and above.

Study Limitations

This meta-analysis has strengths that may increase the generalizability of its results. The researchers included cohort studies, which allowed them to consider the temporal sequence of exposure and outcome. Cohort studies are less affected by recall and selection biases compared with retrospective case–control studies, which increase the likelihood of causality. The researchers also assessed the credibility of subgroup differences using the recently developed ICEMAN tool, calculated both relative and absolute risks, and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Some shortcomings must be considered. Most of the studies included in the present review were rated as having a serious risk for bias, with the most important biases resulting from inadequate adjustment for potential confounders and the methods used for walking speed assessment and diagnosis of T2D. In addition, the findings could have been subject to reverse causality bias because participants with faster walking speed are more likely to perform more physical activity and have better cardiorespiratory fitness, greater muscle mass, and better health status. However, the subgroup analyses of fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking indicated that there were no significant subgroup differences by follow-up duration and that the significant inverse associations remained stable in the subgroup of cohort studies with a follow-up duration of > 10 years.

The authors concluded that “the present meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested that fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking, independent of the total volume of physical activity or time spent walking per day, may be associated with a lower risk of T2D in adults. While current strategies to increase total walking time are beneficial, it may also be reasonable to encourage people to walk at faster speeds to further increase the health benefits of walking.”

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Walking is a simple, cost-free form of exercise that benefits physical, social, and mental health in many ways. Several clinical trials have shown that walking regularly is associated with a lower risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, and having a higher daily step count is linked to a decreased risk for premature death.

Walking and Diabetes

In recent years, the link between walking speed and the risk for multiple health problems has sparked keen interest. Data suggest that a faster walking pace may have a greater physiological response and may be associated with more favorable health advantages than a slow walking pace. A previous meta-analysis of eight cohort studies suggested that individuals in the fastest walking-pace category (median = 5.6 km/h) had a 44% lower risk for stroke than those in the slowest walking-pace category (median = 1.6 km/h). The risk for the former decreased by 13% for every 1 km/h increment in baseline walking pace.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the most common metabolic diseases in the world. People with this type of diabetes have an increased risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications and a shorter life expectancy. Approximately 537 million adults are estimated to be living with diabetes worldwide, and this number is expected to reach 783 million by 2045.

Physical activity is an essential component of T2D prevention programs and can favorably affect blood sugar control. A meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that being physically active was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of acquiring T2D in the general population, and regular walking was associated with a 15% reduction in the risk of developing T2D.

However, no studies have investigated the link between different walking speeds and the risk for T2D. A team from the Research Center at the Semnan University of Medical Sciences in Iran carried out a systematic review of the association between walking speed and the risk of developing T2D in adults; this review was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

10 Cohort Studies

This systematic review used publications (1999-2022) available in the usual data sources (PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) based on different walking speeds. The researchers rated the credibility of subgroup differences and the certainty of evidence using the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification ANalyses (ICEMAN) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively.

Of the 508,121 potential participants, 18,410 adults from 10 prospective cohort studies conducted in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom were deemed eligible. The proportion of women was between 52% and 73%, depending on the cohort. Follow-up duration varied from 3 to 11.1 years (median, 8 years).

Five cohort studies measured walking speed using stopwatch testing, while the other five used self-assessed questionnaires. To define cases of T2D, seven studies used objective methods such as blood glucose measurement or linkage with medical records, and in three cohorts, self-assessment questionnaires were used (these were checked against patient records). All studies controlled age, sex, and tobacco consumption in the multivariate analyses, and some controlled just alcohol consumption, blood pressure, total physical activity volume, body mass index, time spent walking or daily step count, and a family history of diabetes.

The Right Speed

The authors first categorized walking speed into four prespecified levels: Easy or casual (< 2 mph or 3.2 km/h), average or normal (2-3 mph or 3.2-4.8 km/h), fairly brisk (3-4 mph or 4.8-6.4 km/h), and very brisk or brisk/striding (> 4 mph or > 6.4 km/h).

Four cohort studies with 6,520 cases of T2D among 160,321 participants reported information on average or normal walking. Participants with average or normal walking were at a 15% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.85 [95% CI, 0.70-1.00]; RD = 0.86 [1.72-0]). Ten cohort studies with 18,410 cases among 508,121 participants reported information on fairly brisk walking. Those with fairly brisk walking were at a 24% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.76 [0.65-0.87]; I2 = 90%; RD = 1.38 [2.01-0.75]).

There was no significant or credible subgroup difference by adjustment for the total physical activity or time spent walking per day. The dose-response analysis suggested that the risk for T2D decreased significantly at a walking speed of 4 km/h and above.

Study Limitations

This meta-analysis has strengths that may increase the generalizability of its results. The researchers included cohort studies, which allowed them to consider the temporal sequence of exposure and outcome. Cohort studies are less affected by recall and selection biases compared with retrospective case–control studies, which increase the likelihood of causality. The researchers also assessed the credibility of subgroup differences using the recently developed ICEMAN tool, calculated both relative and absolute risks, and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Some shortcomings must be considered. Most of the studies included in the present review were rated as having a serious risk for bias, with the most important biases resulting from inadequate adjustment for potential confounders and the methods used for walking speed assessment and diagnosis of T2D. In addition, the findings could have been subject to reverse causality bias because participants with faster walking speed are more likely to perform more physical activity and have better cardiorespiratory fitness, greater muscle mass, and better health status. However, the subgroup analyses of fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking indicated that there were no significant subgroup differences by follow-up duration and that the significant inverse associations remained stable in the subgroup of cohort studies with a follow-up duration of > 10 years.

The authors concluded that “the present meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested that fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking, independent of the total volume of physical activity or time spent walking per day, may be associated with a lower risk of T2D in adults. While current strategies to increase total walking time are beneficial, it may also be reasonable to encourage people to walk at faster speeds to further increase the health benefits of walking.”

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to the public about counterfeit semaglutide (Ozempic) products that have entered the US drug supply. 

Clinicians and patients are advised to check the product packages they have received and not to use those labeled with lot number NAR0074 and serial number 430834149057. Some of these counterfeit products may still be available for purchase, the FDA said in a statement. 

Together with Ozempic manufacturer Novo Nordisk, the FDA is investigating “thousands of units” of the 1-mg injection product. Information is not yet available regarding the drugs’ identity, quality, or safety. However, the pen needles have been confirmed as fake — thereby raising the potential risk for infection — as have the pen labels, accompanying health care professional and patient label information, and carton. 

“FDA takes reports of possible counterfeit products seriously and works closely with other federal agencies and the private sector to help protect the nation’s drug supply. FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is working with Novo Nordisk to identify, investigate, and remove further suspected counterfeit semaglutide injectable products found in the US,” the statement says. 

Patients are advised to only obtain Ozempic with a valid prescription through state-licensed pharmacies and to check the product before using for any signs of counterfeiting. There are several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products in the way the pen needle is packaged. The most obvious is that the paper tab covering the fake needle says “Novofine®” whereas the genuine one says “Novofine® Plus.” 

There have been at least five adverse events reported from this lot; none were serious and all were consistent with gastrointestinal issues known to occur with the genuine product. 

Counterfeit products should be reported to the FDA ‘s consumer complaint coordinator or to the criminal activity division.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to the public about counterfeit semaglutide (Ozempic) products that have entered the US drug supply. 

Clinicians and patients are advised to check the product packages they have received and not to use those labeled with lot number NAR0074 and serial number 430834149057. Some of these counterfeit products may still be available for purchase, the FDA said in a statement. 

Together with Ozempic manufacturer Novo Nordisk, the FDA is investigating “thousands of units” of the 1-mg injection product. Information is not yet available regarding the drugs’ identity, quality, or safety. However, the pen needles have been confirmed as fake — thereby raising the potential risk for infection — as have the pen labels, accompanying health care professional and patient label information, and carton. 

“FDA takes reports of possible counterfeit products seriously and works closely with other federal agencies and the private sector to help protect the nation’s drug supply. FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is working with Novo Nordisk to identify, investigate, and remove further suspected counterfeit semaglutide injectable products found in the US,” the statement says. 

Patients are advised to only obtain Ozempic with a valid prescription through state-licensed pharmacies and to check the product before using for any signs of counterfeiting. There are several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products in the way the pen needle is packaged. The most obvious is that the paper tab covering the fake needle says “Novofine®” whereas the genuine one says “Novofine® Plus.” 

There have been at least five adverse events reported from this lot; none were serious and all were consistent with gastrointestinal issues known to occur with the genuine product. 

Counterfeit products should be reported to the FDA ‘s consumer complaint coordinator or to the criminal activity division.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to the public about counterfeit semaglutide (Ozempic) products that have entered the US drug supply. 

Clinicians and patients are advised to check the product packages they have received and not to use those labeled with lot number NAR0074 and serial number 430834149057. Some of these counterfeit products may still be available for purchase, the FDA said in a statement. 

Together with Ozempic manufacturer Novo Nordisk, the FDA is investigating “thousands of units” of the 1-mg injection product. Information is not yet available regarding the drugs’ identity, quality, or safety. However, the pen needles have been confirmed as fake — thereby raising the potential risk for infection — as have the pen labels, accompanying health care professional and patient label information, and carton. 

“FDA takes reports of possible counterfeit products seriously and works closely with other federal agencies and the private sector to help protect the nation’s drug supply. FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is working with Novo Nordisk to identify, investigate, and remove further suspected counterfeit semaglutide injectable products found in the US,” the statement says. 

Patients are advised to only obtain Ozempic with a valid prescription through state-licensed pharmacies and to check the product before using for any signs of counterfeiting. There are several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products in the way the pen needle is packaged. The most obvious is that the paper tab covering the fake needle says “Novofine®” whereas the genuine one says “Novofine® Plus.” 

There have been at least five adverse events reported from this lot; none were serious and all were consistent with gastrointestinal issues known to occur with the genuine product. 

Counterfeit products should be reported to the FDA ‘s consumer complaint coordinator or to the criminal activity division.

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

The prevalence of clinically meaningful conjunctivitis in patients taking dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (AD) is likely about 2%, and it most often occurs in the first 16 weeks of therapy.

Those are key findings from an analysis of published trials of dupilumab for AD and other conditions that study author Matthew Zirwas, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Adults with AD have a significant and disease severity–dependent increased risk of developing ocular surface diseases, including conjunctivitis and keratitis, compared with the general population and independent of any drug effect, according to Dr. Zirwas, a dermatologist with Probity Medical Research of Columbus, Ohio.

Dupilumab inhibits signaling of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, which drive type 2 inflammatory diseases such as AD, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), prurigo nodularis (PN), and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU).

In randomized, placebo-controlled trials of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe AD, conjunctivitis was reported in more patients who received dupilumab treatment than in placebo-treated patients.

“When it comes to dupilumab-induced conjunctivitis, we have a good idea of the etiology, but the question of how frequently it occurs versus how frequently the conjunctivitis is unrelated to dupilumab is an interesting one,” he said. “How often is it clinically meaningful? What is it that is so unique about AD patients? We’ve all heard that it is a unique adverse event that only happens to people with AD and not to people using dupilumab for other indications. Where it gets interesting to me is how do we differentiate the cases that are dupilumab induced versus the cases that are just part of the underlying AD process?”

For their analysis, Dr. Zirwas and co-authors reviewed the incidence of conjunctivitis adverse events in patients from 15 completed, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating dupilumab in AD, asthma, CRSwNP, EoE, PN, and CSU, along with the severity and resolution of conjunctivitis events in adults with AD.

Of the 15 trials, 7 were conducted in patients with AD: 4 in adults, 1 in adolescents, 1 in school-aged children, and 1 in preschoolers. One of the AD trials, LIBERTY AD CHRONOS, extends 52 weeks. The remaining eight trials of patients with asthma, CRSwNP, EoE, PN, and CSU lasted 24-52 weeks.

In the non-AD trials, the researchers observed that conjunctivitis rates were generally in the 1%-3% range, with less pronounced or no differences between the dupilumab and placebo groups. In the AD trials, conjunctivitis rates were higher in patients receiving dupilumab, compared with those receiving placebo across age groups.

In the 16-week SOLO 1 & 2 and AD-1021 monotherapy trials, 12 conjunctivitis events occurred in 517 patients who received placebo (2%), compared with 103 of 1047 patients (9.84%) who received dupilumab. Of the dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis cases, 80 (78%) patients recovered by the end of the trials. Of the 23 cases of conjunctivitis that did not recover or dropped out of the trial, 15 were among the 529 patients who received 300 mg dupilumab once every 2 weeks (q2w) (3%) and eight were among the 518 who received 300 mg dupilumab once weekly (qw) (2%).

In the 52-week LIBERTY AD CHRONOS trial, 29 conjunctivitis events occurred in 315 patients who received placebo plus topical corticosteroid (TCS) (9%), compared with 113 of 425 patients (27%) who received dupilumab plus TCS. Of these, 103 (91%) recovered by the end of the trial. Of the 11 patients with conjunctivitis who did not recover or dropped out of the trial, 3 were among the 110 patients who received 300 mg dupilumab q2w plus TCS (3%), and 8 were among the 315 who received 300 mg dupilumab qw plus TCS (3%).

“When I look at all of this data, I think that about 2% of people treated with dupilumab are going to get clinically very meaningful conjunctivitis that may be therapy limiting,” Dr. Zirwas concluded. “The vast majority of those cases appear to happen in the first 16 weeks. This is just not something we see in cases of patients treated with dupilumab treated for other reasons.”

Following his presentation, a meeting attendee asked Dr. Zirwas if conjunctivitis occurs more often in patients with facial dermatitis. “My perception is that it happens more often in people who have facial or eyelid dermatitis, but I’ve seen it in plenty of people who didn’t have any facial or eyelid dermatitis,” he said. “I have seen more conjunctivitis in people with more severe AD and more severe atopic comorbidities. That is anecdotal. The data that I have seen has been back and forth on this topic.”

Dr. Zirwas disclosed that he is a speaker and consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Leo, Lilly, Galderma, Pfizer, and AbbVie. Several of his co-authors work for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

The prevalence of clinically meaningful conjunctivitis in patients taking dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (AD) is likely about 2%, and it most often occurs in the first 16 weeks of therapy.

Those are key findings from an analysis of published trials of dupilumab for AD and other conditions that study author Matthew Zirwas, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Adults with AD have a significant and disease severity–dependent increased risk of developing ocular surface diseases, including conjunctivitis and keratitis, compared with the general population and independent of any drug effect, according to Dr. Zirwas, a dermatologist with Probity Medical Research of Columbus, Ohio.

Dupilumab inhibits signaling of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, which drive type 2 inflammatory diseases such as AD, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), prurigo nodularis (PN), and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU).

In randomized, placebo-controlled trials of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe AD, conjunctivitis was reported in more patients who received dupilumab treatment than in placebo-treated patients.

“When it comes to dupilumab-induced conjunctivitis, we have a good idea of the etiology, but the question of how frequently it occurs versus how frequently the conjunctivitis is unrelated to dupilumab is an interesting one,” he said. “How often is it clinically meaningful? What is it that is so unique about AD patients? We’ve all heard that it is a unique adverse event that only happens to people with AD and not to people using dupilumab for other indications. Where it gets interesting to me is how do we differentiate the cases that are dupilumab induced versus the cases that are just part of the underlying AD process?”

For their analysis, Dr. Zirwas and co-authors reviewed the incidence of conjunctivitis adverse events in patients from 15 completed, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating dupilumab in AD, asthma, CRSwNP, EoE, PN, and CSU, along with the severity and resolution of conjunctivitis events in adults with AD.

Of the 15 trials, 7 were conducted in patients with AD: 4 in adults, 1 in adolescents, 1 in school-aged children, and 1 in preschoolers. One of the AD trials, LIBERTY AD CHRONOS, extends 52 weeks. The remaining eight trials of patients with asthma, CRSwNP, EoE, PN, and CSU lasted 24-52 weeks.

In the non-AD trials, the researchers observed that conjunctivitis rates were generally in the 1%-3% range, with less pronounced or no differences between the dupilumab and placebo groups. In the AD trials, conjunctivitis rates were higher in patients receiving dupilumab, compared with those receiving placebo across age groups.

In the 16-week SOLO 1 & 2 and AD-1021 monotherapy trials, 12 conjunctivitis events occurred in 517 patients who received placebo (2%), compared with 103 of 1047 patients (9.84%) who received dupilumab. Of the dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis cases, 80 (78%) patients recovered by the end of the trials. Of the 23 cases of conjunctivitis that did not recover or dropped out of the trial, 15 were among the 529 patients who received 300 mg dupilumab once every 2 weeks (q2w) (3%) and eight were among the 518 who received 300 mg dupilumab once weekly (qw) (2%).

In the 52-week LIBERTY AD CHRONOS trial, 29 conjunctivitis events occurred in 315 patients who received placebo plus topical corticosteroid (TCS) (9%), compared with 113 of 425 patients (27%) who received dupilumab plus TCS. Of these, 103 (91%) recovered by the end of the trial. Of the 11 patients with conjunctivitis who did not recover or dropped out of the trial, 3 were among the 110 patients who received 300 mg dupilumab q2w plus TCS (3%), and 8 were among the 315 who received 300 mg dupilumab qw plus TCS (3%).

“When I look at all of this data, I think that about 2% of people treated with dupilumab are going to get clinically very meaningful conjunctivitis that may be therapy limiting,” Dr. Zirwas concluded. “The vast majority of those cases appear to happen in the first 16 weeks. This is just not something we see in cases of patients treated with dupilumab treated for other reasons.”

Following his presentation, a meeting attendee asked Dr. Zirwas if conjunctivitis occurs more often in patients with facial dermatitis. “My perception is that it happens more often in people who have facial or eyelid dermatitis, but I’ve seen it in plenty of people who didn’t have any facial or eyelid dermatitis,” he said. “I have seen more conjunctivitis in people with more severe AD and more severe atopic comorbidities. That is anecdotal. The data that I have seen has been back and forth on this topic.”

Dr. Zirwas disclosed that he is a speaker and consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Leo, Lilly, Galderma, Pfizer, and AbbVie. Several of his co-authors work for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

The prevalence of clinically meaningful conjunctivitis in patients taking dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (AD) is likely about 2%, and it most often occurs in the first 16 weeks of therapy.

Those are key findings from an analysis of published trials of dupilumab for AD and other conditions that study author Matthew Zirwas, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Adults with AD have a significant and disease severity–dependent increased risk of developing ocular surface diseases, including conjunctivitis and keratitis, compared with the general population and independent of any drug effect, according to Dr. Zirwas, a dermatologist with Probity Medical Research of Columbus, Ohio.

Dupilumab inhibits signaling of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, which drive type 2 inflammatory diseases such as AD, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), prurigo nodularis (PN), and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU).

In randomized, placebo-controlled trials of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe AD, conjunctivitis was reported in more patients who received dupilumab treatment than in placebo-treated patients.

“When it comes to dupilumab-induced conjunctivitis, we have a good idea of the etiology, but the question of how frequently it occurs versus how frequently the conjunctivitis is unrelated to dupilumab is an interesting one,” he said. “How often is it clinically meaningful? What is it that is so unique about AD patients? We’ve all heard that it is a unique adverse event that only happens to people with AD and not to people using dupilumab for other indications. Where it gets interesting to me is how do we differentiate the cases that are dupilumab induced versus the cases that are just part of the underlying AD process?”

For their analysis, Dr. Zirwas and co-authors reviewed the incidence of conjunctivitis adverse events in patients from 15 completed, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating dupilumab in AD, asthma, CRSwNP, EoE, PN, and CSU, along with the severity and resolution of conjunctivitis events in adults with AD.

Of the 15 trials, 7 were conducted in patients with AD: 4 in adults, 1 in adolescents, 1 in school-aged children, and 1 in preschoolers. One of the AD trials, LIBERTY AD CHRONOS, extends 52 weeks. The remaining eight trials of patients with asthma, CRSwNP, EoE, PN, and CSU lasted 24-52 weeks.

In the non-AD trials, the researchers observed that conjunctivitis rates were generally in the 1%-3% range, with less pronounced or no differences between the dupilumab and placebo groups. In the AD trials, conjunctivitis rates were higher in patients receiving dupilumab, compared with those receiving placebo across age groups.

In the 16-week SOLO 1 & 2 and AD-1021 monotherapy trials, 12 conjunctivitis events occurred in 517 patients who received placebo (2%), compared with 103 of 1047 patients (9.84%) who received dupilumab. Of the dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis cases, 80 (78%) patients recovered by the end of the trials. Of the 23 cases of conjunctivitis that did not recover or dropped out of the trial, 15 were among the 529 patients who received 300 mg dupilumab once every 2 weeks (q2w) (3%) and eight were among the 518 who received 300 mg dupilumab once weekly (qw) (2%).

In the 52-week LIBERTY AD CHRONOS trial, 29 conjunctivitis events occurred in 315 patients who received placebo plus topical corticosteroid (TCS) (9%), compared with 113 of 425 patients (27%) who received dupilumab plus TCS. Of these, 103 (91%) recovered by the end of the trial. Of the 11 patients with conjunctivitis who did not recover or dropped out of the trial, 3 were among the 110 patients who received 300 mg dupilumab q2w plus TCS (3%), and 8 were among the 315 who received 300 mg dupilumab qw plus TCS (3%).

“When I look at all of this data, I think that about 2% of people treated with dupilumab are going to get clinically very meaningful conjunctivitis that may be therapy limiting,” Dr. Zirwas concluded. “The vast majority of those cases appear to happen in the first 16 weeks. This is just not something we see in cases of patients treated with dupilumab treated for other reasons.”

Following his presentation, a meeting attendee asked Dr. Zirwas if conjunctivitis occurs more often in patients with facial dermatitis. “My perception is that it happens more often in people who have facial or eyelid dermatitis, but I’ve seen it in plenty of people who didn’t have any facial or eyelid dermatitis,” he said. “I have seen more conjunctivitis in people with more severe AD and more severe atopic comorbidities. That is anecdotal. The data that I have seen has been back and forth on this topic.”

Dr. Zirwas disclosed that he is a speaker and consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Leo, Lilly, Galderma, Pfizer, and AbbVie. Several of his co-authors work for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

As we begin to find our way in the new world of obesity management, questions continue to surface more quickly than answers. This isn’t surprising, as we are being asked to view obesity as a disease when for decades the general consensus has been that overweight people are simply will power deficient.

Are the new drugs as effective as we are told by the patients and physicians who have had some experience using and prescribing them? Will they continue to be effective in the very long run? Will their safety record hold up over time? And for those of us in pediatrics, what will be their role for children? As a group we tend to be cautious about drugs that haven’t been thoroughly tested in children. How many years will it take before we feel comfortable with obesity drugs? And, of course, we should be asking ourselves the same questions about bariatric surgery.

Fortunately, while the media spotlight has been focused on the treatment arm of our obesity strategy, there are still some folks looking at what has been up to now the discouraging prospects for prevention. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recently released a draft of its recommendations that includes evidence supporting the effectiveness of “intensive behavioral interventions” (defined as a minimum of 26 hours of counseling). In reviewing data from nearly 60 randomized controlled trials, which included more than 10,000 children, the task force found that when beginning as early as age 6, a package including healthy eating education, physical activity, and behavioral change support could be effective in helping the children achieve healthy weight and an improved quality of life. It should be noted that the USPSTF gave the intervention package only a B grade, which means that the agency found evidence of high certainty of a moderate benefit over an unspecified time period. Certainly, not a ringing endorsement.

While I think we must applaud the diligent efforts of the task force and its commitment to prevention, I fear that the strategy is too little too late. That being said, I am willing to accept the idea that targeting age 6 for intensive counseling may qualify for the better-late-than-never category. The task force acknowledges that procuring the resources given our already understaffed mental health clinics is going to be difficult and expensive. I would add that it will be so costly in time and money as to be unrealistic.

Based on my observations of thousands of children, the scaffolding of habits, diet, and preference for inactivity that underly obesity has already been laid by age 6. Are we prepared to shoulder our already overburdened school systems in an attempt to reconfigure this foundation of an obesogenic lifestyle? An effort on this scale after children have been sent off to first grade is doomed to failure.

A recent review of data reported by the CDC and reviewed in the journal Pediatrics reveals that about 2% of children receiving federal assistance from the WIC program are severely obese. It is probably safe to say that these preschoolers represent just the tip of a very concerning iceberg.

By waiting until age 6, we would increase the risk of further stigmatizing the obese child. What will he tell his peers when he is taken out of school or misses a playdate because he has to meet with his “obesity counselor”?

If we are going to take obesity prevention seriously and spend time and money in counseling, doesn’t it make more sense to invest this effort on the parents and the home situation when the child is still under their influence? We must be prepared to unwrap and employ an “intensive behavioral package” the first time we see evidence that the child’s growth chart is heading in an unhealthy direction.

This won’t always be easy. I can recall seeing a 4-year-old whose weight had risen dramatically from her previous curve in the year since her 3-year checkup. The answer became obvious when I discovered that her grandmother, for whom baking was a passion, had taken over as her daycare provider. Arriving at a solution that kept the family on speaking terms took some tact, but it was one of my rare successes in obesity prevention. And, it worked because of early intervention.

Thank you USPSTF, but 6 years is too late.

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

As we begin to find our way in the new world of obesity management, questions continue to surface more quickly than answers. This isn’t surprising, as we are being asked to view obesity as a disease when for decades the general consensus has been that overweight people are simply will power deficient.

Are the new drugs as effective as we are told by the patients and physicians who have had some experience using and prescribing them? Will they continue to be effective in the very long run? Will their safety record hold up over time? And for those of us in pediatrics, what will be their role for children? As a group we tend to be cautious about drugs that haven’t been thoroughly tested in children. How many years will it take before we feel comfortable with obesity drugs? And, of course, we should be asking ourselves the same questions about bariatric surgery.

Fortunately, while the media spotlight has been focused on the treatment arm of our obesity strategy, there are still some folks looking at what has been up to now the discouraging prospects for prevention. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recently released a draft of its recommendations that includes evidence supporting the effectiveness of “intensive behavioral interventions” (defined as a minimum of 26 hours of counseling). In reviewing data from nearly 60 randomized controlled trials, which included more than 10,000 children, the task force found that when beginning as early as age 6, a package including healthy eating education, physical activity, and behavioral change support could be effective in helping the children achieve healthy weight and an improved quality of life. It should be noted that the USPSTF gave the intervention package only a B grade, which means that the agency found evidence of high certainty of a moderate benefit over an unspecified time period. Certainly, not a ringing endorsement.

While I think we must applaud the diligent efforts of the task force and its commitment to prevention, I fear that the strategy is too little too late. That being said, I am willing to accept the idea that targeting age 6 for intensive counseling may qualify for the better-late-than-never category. The task force acknowledges that procuring the resources given our already understaffed mental health clinics is going to be difficult and expensive. I would add that it will be so costly in time and money as to be unrealistic.

Based on my observations of thousands of children, the scaffolding of habits, diet, and preference for inactivity that underly obesity has already been laid by age 6. Are we prepared to shoulder our already overburdened school systems in an attempt to reconfigure this foundation of an obesogenic lifestyle? An effort on this scale after children have been sent off to first grade is doomed to failure.

A recent review of data reported by the CDC and reviewed in the journal Pediatrics reveals that about 2% of children receiving federal assistance from the WIC program are severely obese. It is probably safe to say that these preschoolers represent just the tip of a very concerning iceberg.

By waiting until age 6, we would increase the risk of further stigmatizing the obese child. What will he tell his peers when he is taken out of school or misses a playdate because he has to meet with his “obesity counselor”?

If we are going to take obesity prevention seriously and spend time and money in counseling, doesn’t it make more sense to invest this effort on the parents and the home situation when the child is still under their influence? We must be prepared to unwrap and employ an “intensive behavioral package” the first time we see evidence that the child’s growth chart is heading in an unhealthy direction.

This won’t always be easy. I can recall seeing a 4-year-old whose weight had risen dramatically from her previous curve in the year since her 3-year checkup. The answer became obvious when I discovered that her grandmother, for whom baking was a passion, had taken over as her daycare provider. Arriving at a solution that kept the family on speaking terms took some tact, but it was one of my rare successes in obesity prevention. And, it worked because of early intervention.

Thank you USPSTF, but 6 years is too late.

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

As we begin to find our way in the new world of obesity management, questions continue to surface more quickly than answers. This isn’t surprising, as we are being asked to view obesity as a disease when for decades the general consensus has been that overweight people are simply will power deficient.

Are the new drugs as effective as we are told by the patients and physicians who have had some experience using and prescribing them? Will they continue to be effective in the very long run? Will their safety record hold up over time? And for those of us in pediatrics, what will be their role for children? As a group we tend to be cautious about drugs that haven’t been thoroughly tested in children. How many years will it take before we feel comfortable with obesity drugs? And, of course, we should be asking ourselves the same questions about bariatric surgery.

Fortunately, while the media spotlight has been focused on the treatment arm of our obesity strategy, there are still some folks looking at what has been up to now the discouraging prospects for prevention. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recently released a draft of its recommendations that includes evidence supporting the effectiveness of “intensive behavioral interventions” (defined as a minimum of 26 hours of counseling). In reviewing data from nearly 60 randomized controlled trials, which included more than 10,000 children, the task force found that when beginning as early as age 6, a package including healthy eating education, physical activity, and behavioral change support could be effective in helping the children achieve healthy weight and an improved quality of life. It should be noted that the USPSTF gave the intervention package only a B grade, which means that the agency found evidence of high certainty of a moderate benefit over an unspecified time period. Certainly, not a ringing endorsement.

While I think we must applaud the diligent efforts of the task force and its commitment to prevention, I fear that the strategy is too little too late. That being said, I am willing to accept the idea that targeting age 6 for intensive counseling may qualify for the better-late-than-never category. The task force acknowledges that procuring the resources given our already understaffed mental health clinics is going to be difficult and expensive. I would add that it will be so costly in time and money as to be unrealistic.

Based on my observations of thousands of children, the scaffolding of habits, diet, and preference for inactivity that underly obesity has already been laid by age 6. Are we prepared to shoulder our already overburdened school systems in an attempt to reconfigure this foundation of an obesogenic lifestyle? An effort on this scale after children have been sent off to first grade is doomed to failure.

A recent review of data reported by the CDC and reviewed in the journal Pediatrics reveals that about 2% of children receiving federal assistance from the WIC program are severely obese. It is probably safe to say that these preschoolers represent just the tip of a very concerning iceberg.

By waiting until age 6, we would increase the risk of further stigmatizing the obese child. What will he tell his peers when he is taken out of school or misses a playdate because he has to meet with his “obesity counselor”?

If we are going to take obesity prevention seriously and spend time and money in counseling, doesn’t it make more sense to invest this effort on the parents and the home situation when the child is still under their influence? We must be prepared to unwrap and employ an “intensive behavioral package” the first time we see evidence that the child’s growth chart is heading in an unhealthy direction.

This won’t always be easy. I can recall seeing a 4-year-old whose weight had risen dramatically from her previous curve in the year since her 3-year checkup. The answer became obvious when I discovered that her grandmother, for whom baking was a passion, had taken over as her daycare provider. Arriving at a solution that kept the family on speaking terms took some tact, but it was one of my rare successes in obesity prevention. And, it worked because of early intervention.

Thank you USPSTF, but 6 years is too late.

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

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.