MDedge Pediatrics

In a victory for clinicians who fought to keep working regardless of age, a San Diego–based medical group has agreed to settle a federal investigation by paying nearly $7 million to physicians subject to their employer’s policy requiring them to quit at age 75.

In a statement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said the settlement will resolve an age and disability discrimination charge filed against Scripps Clinic Medical Group. The medical group is part of Scripps Health, a major provider of medical services in the San Diego region that operates five local hospitals.

The EECO said it found “reasonable cause” that the medical group violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

US health systems are facing lawsuits that claim they’ve engaged in age discrimination by requiring physicians to take cognitive tests when they reach specific ages.

The Scripps medical group’s mandatory retirement policy began in 2016 and was consistent with California law, which specifically allows for mandatory retirement of physicians in medical groups at age 70, Scripps said in a statement, adding that it rescinded the policy in 2018.

“This policy was put in place to enhance patient safety,” Scripps said. “The EEOC took the position while such a policy is expressly legal under California law; it is not allowed under federal law.”

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states that employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” There are exceptions, however, in cases of public safety for professions such as air traffic controllers.

California law has a similar provision banning age discrimination, but it makes an exception for “any employee who has attained 70 years of age and is a physician employed by a professional medical corporation, the articles or bylaws of which provide for compulsory retirement.”

In 2020, an estimated 12% of US licensed physicians were at least 70 years old — more than 120,000 in total — up from 9% in a 2010, according to a Federation of State Medical Boards 2021 report.

Scripps Clinic Medical Group settled with the EEOC “without any admission of fault or wrongdoing to avoid the continued expense and distraction of litigation,” its statement said. It agreed to pay $6.875 million to the affected physicians.

When asked about how many physicians were affected by the policy, a Scripps human resources official said, “this was disputed but very few. The policy was only in effect for 2 years, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, by age 75, most doctors have retired. And those who have not almost always have voluntarily limited their practice.”

The Scripps official didn’t respond to questions about the number of patients served by the medical group and how many physicians it employs.

According to the EEOC, the medical group has agreed to tell employees that the policy has been scrapped and must “clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment.”

Scripps Clinic Medical Group also agreed to require division and department heads, executive leadership, and human resources employees to be trained regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a victory for clinicians who fought to keep working regardless of age, a San Diego–based medical group has agreed to settle a federal investigation by paying nearly $7 million to physicians subject to their employer’s policy requiring them to quit at age 75.

In a statement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said the settlement will resolve an age and disability discrimination charge filed against Scripps Clinic Medical Group. The medical group is part of Scripps Health, a major provider of medical services in the San Diego region that operates five local hospitals.

The EECO said it found “reasonable cause” that the medical group violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

US health systems are facing lawsuits that claim they’ve engaged in age discrimination by requiring physicians to take cognitive tests when they reach specific ages.

The Scripps medical group’s mandatory retirement policy began in 2016 and was consistent with California law, which specifically allows for mandatory retirement of physicians in medical groups at age 70, Scripps said in a statement, adding that it rescinded the policy in 2018.

“This policy was put in place to enhance patient safety,” Scripps said. “The EEOC took the position while such a policy is expressly legal under California law; it is not allowed under federal law.”

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states that employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” There are exceptions, however, in cases of public safety for professions such as air traffic controllers.

California law has a similar provision banning age discrimination, but it makes an exception for “any employee who has attained 70 years of age and is a physician employed by a professional medical corporation, the articles or bylaws of which provide for compulsory retirement.”

In 2020, an estimated 12% of US licensed physicians were at least 70 years old — more than 120,000 in total — up from 9% in a 2010, according to a Federation of State Medical Boards 2021 report.

Scripps Clinic Medical Group settled with the EEOC “without any admission of fault or wrongdoing to avoid the continued expense and distraction of litigation,” its statement said. It agreed to pay $6.875 million to the affected physicians.

When asked about how many physicians were affected by the policy, a Scripps human resources official said, “this was disputed but very few. The policy was only in effect for 2 years, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, by age 75, most doctors have retired. And those who have not almost always have voluntarily limited their practice.”

The Scripps official didn’t respond to questions about the number of patients served by the medical group and how many physicians it employs.

According to the EEOC, the medical group has agreed to tell employees that the policy has been scrapped and must “clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment.”

Scripps Clinic Medical Group also agreed to require division and department heads, executive leadership, and human resources employees to be trained regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a victory for clinicians who fought to keep working regardless of age, a San Diego–based medical group has agreed to settle a federal investigation by paying nearly $7 million to physicians subject to their employer’s policy requiring them to quit at age 75.

In a statement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said the settlement will resolve an age and disability discrimination charge filed against Scripps Clinic Medical Group. The medical group is part of Scripps Health, a major provider of medical services in the San Diego region that operates five local hospitals.

The EECO said it found “reasonable cause” that the medical group violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

US health systems are facing lawsuits that claim they’ve engaged in age discrimination by requiring physicians to take cognitive tests when they reach specific ages.

The Scripps medical group’s mandatory retirement policy began in 2016 and was consistent with California law, which specifically allows for mandatory retirement of physicians in medical groups at age 70, Scripps said in a statement, adding that it rescinded the policy in 2018.

“This policy was put in place to enhance patient safety,” Scripps said. “The EEOC took the position while such a policy is expressly legal under California law; it is not allowed under federal law.”

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states that employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” There are exceptions, however, in cases of public safety for professions such as air traffic controllers.

California law has a similar provision banning age discrimination, but it makes an exception for “any employee who has attained 70 years of age and is a physician employed by a professional medical corporation, the articles or bylaws of which provide for compulsory retirement.”

In 2020, an estimated 12% of US licensed physicians were at least 70 years old — more than 120,000 in total — up from 9% in a 2010, according to a Federation of State Medical Boards 2021 report.

Scripps Clinic Medical Group settled with the EEOC “without any admission of fault or wrongdoing to avoid the continued expense and distraction of litigation,” its statement said. It agreed to pay $6.875 million to the affected physicians.

When asked about how many physicians were affected by the policy, a Scripps human resources official said, “this was disputed but very few. The policy was only in effect for 2 years, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, by age 75, most doctors have retired. And those who have not almost always have voluntarily limited their practice.”

The Scripps official didn’t respond to questions about the number of patients served by the medical group and how many physicians it employs.

According to the EEOC, the medical group has agreed to tell employees that the policy has been scrapped and must “clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment.”

Scripps Clinic Medical Group also agreed to require division and department heads, executive leadership, and human resources employees to be trained regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib for 4 or more weeks, more than half achieved clear or almost clear skin and 45% or more reported no or minimal itch, results from an analysis of registry data showed.

“We know from clinical trials that upadacitinib is effective, but we have very little real-world experience on its effectiveness,” presenting study author Melinda Gooderham, MD, medical director of the Skin Center for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

For the analysis, she and her coauthors evaluated the real-world clinical and patient-reported outcomes of 335 adults enrolled in the CorEvitas AD Registry from July 21, 2020, through Aug. 7, 2023. They included patients who were on upadacitinib for at least 4 weeks and persisted on the drug until the time of evaluation.

The CorEvitas AD Registry is a prospective, non-interventional registry of adults diagnosed with AD by a dermatologist or qualified dermatology practitioner. Outcomes measures included the proportion of patients who achieved skin clearance as defined by a Validated Investigators Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA) score of 0 or 1, an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of 3 or less, a Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score of 0 or 1, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 0-2, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 0 or 1, or an Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) score of <7.

The researchers evaluated cross-sectional data from three different cohorts: data from the last registry visit (the overall cohort), data from a visit within 1 month to less than 5 months of upadacitinib initiation (the 1-5 months cohort), and data from a visit within 5-9 months following upadacitinib initiation (the 5-9 months cohort). They also conducted subgroup analyses of patients with prior use of biologics for AD (bio-experience) and those with no such history (bio-naive). Safety events were not assessed in this analysis.

The mean age of the 335 patients was 45.6 years, 51.6% were female, 64.2% were White, 64.2% were based in the United States and the rest were based in Canada. Most patients (70.8%) were treated with the 15-mg dose of upadacitinib. The median duration of treatment was 6.9 months. Slightly more than one-quarter of patients (28.1%) reported concomitant use of topical corticosteroids for AD, while 45.4% reported prior use of dupilumab and 6% reported prior use of tralokinumab.

Dr. Gooderham reported that 57.5% of patients in the total cohort total cohort achieved clear or almost clear skin (a vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1), with slight differences between the bio-naive (60.6%) and bio-experienced (54.1%) subgroups.

The other outcomes were similarly close between the 176 bio-naive and 159 bio-experienced patients. Specifically, 74.8% in the total cohort, 79.4% in the bio-naive subgroup, and 69.6% in the bio-experienced subgroup achieved an EASI score of 3 or less. In the measure of the worst itch in the past 24 hours, 45.3%, 47.7%, and 42.8% respectively achieved a PP-NRS of 0 or 1. In the patient-reported disease burden, 36.4%, 41%, and 31.4% achieved a POEM score of 0-2. In the quality of life measure, 39.8%, 42.8%, and 36.5% achieved a DLQI score of 0 or 1. In the measure of disease control, 69.3%, 70.5%, and 67.9% achieved an ADCT score of <7. In a combination of skin clearance and itch control, 40.9%, 43.2%, and 38.4% of the total cohort, bio-naive, and bio-experienced respectively achieved both an EASI score of 3 or less and a PP-NRS of 0 or 1.

The study outcomes were similar between the 1-5 months cohort and the 5-9 months cohort, but there was a trend toward more clearance the longer patients were on therapy.

“The findings suggest that low levels of disease severity are observed in patients on upadacitinib in a real-world setting,” Dr. Gooderham concluded. “This confirms what we see in the clinical trials.”

She disclosed that she is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie.

Among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib for 4 or more weeks, more than half achieved clear or almost clear skin and 45% or more reported no or minimal itch, results from an analysis of registry data showed.

“We know from clinical trials that upadacitinib is effective, but we have very little real-world experience on its effectiveness,” presenting study author Melinda Gooderham, MD, medical director of the Skin Center for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

For the analysis, she and her coauthors evaluated the real-world clinical and patient-reported outcomes of 335 adults enrolled in the CorEvitas AD Registry from July 21, 2020, through Aug. 7, 2023. They included patients who were on upadacitinib for at least 4 weeks and persisted on the drug until the time of evaluation.

The CorEvitas AD Registry is a prospective, non-interventional registry of adults diagnosed with AD by a dermatologist or qualified dermatology practitioner. Outcomes measures included the proportion of patients who achieved skin clearance as defined by a Validated Investigators Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA) score of 0 or 1, an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of 3 or less, a Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score of 0 or 1, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 0-2, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 0 or 1, or an Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) score of <7.

The researchers evaluated cross-sectional data from three different cohorts: data from the last registry visit (the overall cohort), data from a visit within 1 month to less than 5 months of upadacitinib initiation (the 1-5 months cohort), and data from a visit within 5-9 months following upadacitinib initiation (the 5-9 months cohort). They also conducted subgroup analyses of patients with prior use of biologics for AD (bio-experience) and those with no such history (bio-naive). Safety events were not assessed in this analysis.

The mean age of the 335 patients was 45.6 years, 51.6% were female, 64.2% were White, 64.2% were based in the United States and the rest were based in Canada. Most patients (70.8%) were treated with the 15-mg dose of upadacitinib. The median duration of treatment was 6.9 months. Slightly more than one-quarter of patients (28.1%) reported concomitant use of topical corticosteroids for AD, while 45.4% reported prior use of dupilumab and 6% reported prior use of tralokinumab.

Dr. Gooderham reported that 57.5% of patients in the total cohort total cohort achieved clear or almost clear skin (a vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1), with slight differences between the bio-naive (60.6%) and bio-experienced (54.1%) subgroups.

The other outcomes were similarly close between the 176 bio-naive and 159 bio-experienced patients. Specifically, 74.8% in the total cohort, 79.4% in the bio-naive subgroup, and 69.6% in the bio-experienced subgroup achieved an EASI score of 3 or less. In the measure of the worst itch in the past 24 hours, 45.3%, 47.7%, and 42.8% respectively achieved a PP-NRS of 0 or 1. In the patient-reported disease burden, 36.4%, 41%, and 31.4% achieved a POEM score of 0-2. In the quality of life measure, 39.8%, 42.8%, and 36.5% achieved a DLQI score of 0 or 1. In the measure of disease control, 69.3%, 70.5%, and 67.9% achieved an ADCT score of <7. In a combination of skin clearance and itch control, 40.9%, 43.2%, and 38.4% of the total cohort, bio-naive, and bio-experienced respectively achieved both an EASI score of 3 or less and a PP-NRS of 0 or 1.

The study outcomes were similar between the 1-5 months cohort and the 5-9 months cohort, but there was a trend toward more clearance the longer patients were on therapy.

“The findings suggest that low levels of disease severity are observed in patients on upadacitinib in a real-world setting,” Dr. Gooderham concluded. “This confirms what we see in the clinical trials.”

She disclosed that she is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie.

Among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib for 4 or more weeks, more than half achieved clear or almost clear skin and 45% or more reported no or minimal itch, results from an analysis of registry data showed.

“We know from clinical trials that upadacitinib is effective, but we have very little real-world experience on its effectiveness,” presenting study author Melinda Gooderham, MD, medical director of the Skin Center for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

For the analysis, she and her coauthors evaluated the real-world clinical and patient-reported outcomes of 335 adults enrolled in the CorEvitas AD Registry from July 21, 2020, through Aug. 7, 2023. They included patients who were on upadacitinib for at least 4 weeks and persisted on the drug until the time of evaluation.

The CorEvitas AD Registry is a prospective, non-interventional registry of adults diagnosed with AD by a dermatologist or qualified dermatology practitioner. Outcomes measures included the proportion of patients who achieved skin clearance as defined by a Validated Investigators Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA) score of 0 or 1, an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of 3 or less, a Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score of 0 or 1, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 0-2, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 0 or 1, or an Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) score of <7.

The researchers evaluated cross-sectional data from three different cohorts: data from the last registry visit (the overall cohort), data from a visit within 1 month to less than 5 months of upadacitinib initiation (the 1-5 months cohort), and data from a visit within 5-9 months following upadacitinib initiation (the 5-9 months cohort). They also conducted subgroup analyses of patients with prior use of biologics for AD (bio-experience) and those with no such history (bio-naive). Safety events were not assessed in this analysis.

The mean age of the 335 patients was 45.6 years, 51.6% were female, 64.2% were White, 64.2% were based in the United States and the rest were based in Canada. Most patients (70.8%) were treated with the 15-mg dose of upadacitinib. The median duration of treatment was 6.9 months. Slightly more than one-quarter of patients (28.1%) reported concomitant use of topical corticosteroids for AD, while 45.4% reported prior use of dupilumab and 6% reported prior use of tralokinumab.

Dr. Gooderham reported that 57.5% of patients in the total cohort total cohort achieved clear or almost clear skin (a vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1), with slight differences between the bio-naive (60.6%) and bio-experienced (54.1%) subgroups.

The other outcomes were similarly close between the 176 bio-naive and 159 bio-experienced patients. Specifically, 74.8% in the total cohort, 79.4% in the bio-naive subgroup, and 69.6% in the bio-experienced subgroup achieved an EASI score of 3 or less. In the measure of the worst itch in the past 24 hours, 45.3%, 47.7%, and 42.8% respectively achieved a PP-NRS of 0 or 1. In the patient-reported disease burden, 36.4%, 41%, and 31.4% achieved a POEM score of 0-2. In the quality of life measure, 39.8%, 42.8%, and 36.5% achieved a DLQI score of 0 or 1. In the measure of disease control, 69.3%, 70.5%, and 67.9% achieved an ADCT score of <7. In a combination of skin clearance and itch control, 40.9%, 43.2%, and 38.4% of the total cohort, bio-naive, and bio-experienced respectively achieved both an EASI score of 3 or less and a PP-NRS of 0 or 1.

The study outcomes were similar between the 1-5 months cohort and the 5-9 months cohort, but there was a trend toward more clearance the longer patients were on therapy.

“The findings suggest that low levels of disease severity are observed in patients on upadacitinib in a real-world setting,” Dr. Gooderham concluded. “This confirms what we see in the clinical trials.”

She disclosed that she is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie.

The FDA has approved a topical gel containing birch triterpenes for the treatment of partial thickness wounds in patients 6 months and older with junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB).

The gel is marketed under the name Filsuvez. It is the first approved treatment for wounds associated with JEB and the second for patients with DEB, following the approval of Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech), a topical gene therapy gel, in May 2023.

First developed by Amryt Pharma and intended for home use, Filsuvez is now marketed by Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, which acquired Amryt in January 2023. The gel is applied topically to the wound at each dressing change.

The approval of Filsuvez is based on results from the Efficacy and Safety Study of Oleogel-S10 in Epidermolysis Bullosa (EASE), a randomized, placebo-controlled study of 223 people, the largest-ever phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of EB, according to the Chiesi news release. The gel was well tolerated and met the primary endpoint with statistical significance, with 41.3% of patients achieving first complete target wound closure within 45 days (compared with 28.9% on placebo).

“I am so excited to say that this is another hurdle cleared and milestone achieved for the EB Community,” Brett Kopelan, executive director at debra of America said in a blog post. “We are now on the road to being able to treat EB more effectively, and to make the worst disease you’ve never heard of chronic, but livable, by making use of multiple therapeutic options in conjunction with each other.”

The FDA has approved a topical gel containing birch triterpenes for the treatment of partial thickness wounds in patients 6 months and older with junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB).

The gel is marketed under the name Filsuvez. It is the first approved treatment for wounds associated with JEB and the second for patients with DEB, following the approval of Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech), a topical gene therapy gel, in May 2023.

First developed by Amryt Pharma and intended for home use, Filsuvez is now marketed by Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, which acquired Amryt in January 2023. The gel is applied topically to the wound at each dressing change.

The approval of Filsuvez is based on results from the Efficacy and Safety Study of Oleogel-S10 in Epidermolysis Bullosa (EASE), a randomized, placebo-controlled study of 223 people, the largest-ever phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of EB, according to the Chiesi news release. The gel was well tolerated and met the primary endpoint with statistical significance, with 41.3% of patients achieving first complete target wound closure within 45 days (compared with 28.9% on placebo).

“I am so excited to say that this is another hurdle cleared and milestone achieved for the EB Community,” Brett Kopelan, executive director at debra of America said in a blog post. “We are now on the road to being able to treat EB more effectively, and to make the worst disease you’ve never heard of chronic, but livable, by making use of multiple therapeutic options in conjunction with each other.”

The FDA has approved a topical gel containing birch triterpenes for the treatment of partial thickness wounds in patients 6 months and older with junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB).

The gel is marketed under the name Filsuvez. It is the first approved treatment for wounds associated with JEB and the second for patients with DEB, following the approval of Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech), a topical gene therapy gel, in May 2023.

First developed by Amryt Pharma and intended for home use, Filsuvez is now marketed by Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, which acquired Amryt in January 2023. The gel is applied topically to the wound at each dressing change.

The approval of Filsuvez is based on results from the Efficacy and Safety Study of Oleogel-S10 in Epidermolysis Bullosa (EASE), a randomized, placebo-controlled study of 223 people, the largest-ever phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of EB, according to the Chiesi news release. The gel was well tolerated and met the primary endpoint with statistical significance, with 41.3% of patients achieving first complete target wound closure within 45 days (compared with 28.9% on placebo).

“I am so excited to say that this is another hurdle cleared and milestone achieved for the EB Community,” Brett Kopelan, executive director at debra of America said in a blog post. “We are now on the road to being able to treat EB more effectively, and to make the worst disease you’ve never heard of chronic, but livable, by making use of multiple therapeutic options in conjunction with each other.”

You’re familiar with DIY and DUI, but what associations do the initials DEI trigger in your thought processor? Your college is probably influenced by it. So is your medical school, as are many of the businesses whose advertisements bombard you on television and the internet. Your professional association is definitely involved with it.

In the words of one newspaper columnist, DEI is an “ideological framework” whose most recognizable buzz words are “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion.” In the case of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), DEI has taken the form of a hiring philosophy that accepts and respects its responsibility to create a workplace “where each person can fully contribute to the shared mission without discrimination or intimidation and each person is respected, supported, and provided the equal opportunity, regardless of race, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, religion, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression age, veteran status, immigration status, or disability.”.

As an organization representing its members, the AAP has issued a statement: “Celebrating the diversity of children and families and promoting nurturing, inclusive environments means actively opposing intolerance, bigotry, bias and discrimination” Further, the AAP says it is committed to using policy, advocacy, and education to encourage inclusivity and cultural effectiveness for all.”. Included in its recommendations to fulfill this commitment are efforts to diversify the pediatric workforce and eliminate race-based medicine.

For the AAP, its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion seems to be a good fit. The first line of its mission statement — “to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents and young adults” — is well focused and one that its members can agree upon. However, we are beginning to see and hear that on some college and university campuses DEI has worn out its welcome.

In academia, the decision to include a broad mix of students and faculty with diverse backgrounds and at the same time provide opportunities equitably has hit some serious bumps in the road. It’s unclear how much the chaos in the Middle East is to blame, However, for several years there have been unfortunate campus incidents when the invitation of controversial guest speakers has laid bare the widely different interpretations of exactly what “free speech” means.

From its hazy inception, DEI has been missing one key ingredient — commonality. If we are going to actively seek to include individuals from a variety of backgrounds, encourage them to celebrate their diversity, and offer them equitable opportunities, then at the same time we must make it clear that our overriding goal is to seek and encourage the civil discussion of what we all have in common. Neglecting this additional step of promoting commonality is a grave mistake.

One mustn’t be surprised that a group of individuals from diverse backgrounds will have differing opinions. Finding common ground will predictably be a challenge, but it can be done. It requires compromise and a commitment to civil discussion. Regrettably, DEI as a framework places so much emphasis on the individual and diversity that the critical concept of commonality has been lost. Ironically, true inclusion and equity can’t occur without a reverence for commonality.

The AAP has done a good job of folding DEI into fulfilling the first sentence of its mission statement. However, it must not lose sight of the critical ingredient of commonality as it seeks to “support the professional needs of its members” (the second sentence of its mission). Despite a general agreement on the goal of providing care for all children, there are differences of opinion among its members when it comes to some of the details. The confusing topic of gender-affirmative care comes to mind. I am confident that as a group of thoughtful professionals, even in the face of wide differences, we can see the way to civil and productive discussions in the search for commonality.

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].

You’re familiar with DIY and DUI, but what associations do the initials DEI trigger in your thought processor? Your college is probably influenced by it. So is your medical school, as are many of the businesses whose advertisements bombard you on television and the internet. Your professional association is definitely involved with it.

In the words of one newspaper columnist, DEI is an “ideological framework” whose most recognizable buzz words are “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion.” In the case of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), DEI has taken the form of a hiring philosophy that accepts and respects its responsibility to create a workplace “where each person can fully contribute to the shared mission without discrimination or intimidation and each person is respected, supported, and provided the equal opportunity, regardless of race, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, religion, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression age, veteran status, immigration status, or disability.”.

As an organization representing its members, the AAP has issued a statement: “Celebrating the diversity of children and families and promoting nurturing, inclusive environments means actively opposing intolerance, bigotry, bias and discrimination” Further, the AAP says it is committed to using policy, advocacy, and education to encourage inclusivity and cultural effectiveness for all.”. Included in its recommendations to fulfill this commitment are efforts to diversify the pediatric workforce and eliminate race-based medicine.

For the AAP, its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion seems to be a good fit. The first line of its mission statement — “to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents and young adults” — is well focused and one that its members can agree upon. However, we are beginning to see and hear that on some college and university campuses DEI has worn out its welcome.

In academia, the decision to include a broad mix of students and faculty with diverse backgrounds and at the same time provide opportunities equitably has hit some serious bumps in the road. It’s unclear how much the chaos in the Middle East is to blame, However, for several years there have been unfortunate campus incidents when the invitation of controversial guest speakers has laid bare the widely different interpretations of exactly what “free speech” means.

From its hazy inception, DEI has been missing one key ingredient — commonality. If we are going to actively seek to include individuals from a variety of backgrounds, encourage them to celebrate their diversity, and offer them equitable opportunities, then at the same time we must make it clear that our overriding goal is to seek and encourage the civil discussion of what we all have in common. Neglecting this additional step of promoting commonality is a grave mistake.

One mustn’t be surprised that a group of individuals from diverse backgrounds will have differing opinions. Finding common ground will predictably be a challenge, but it can be done. It requires compromise and a commitment to civil discussion. Regrettably, DEI as a framework places so much emphasis on the individual and diversity that the critical concept of commonality has been lost. Ironically, true inclusion and equity can’t occur without a reverence for commonality.

The AAP has done a good job of folding DEI into fulfilling the first sentence of its mission statement. However, it must not lose sight of the critical ingredient of commonality as it seeks to “support the professional needs of its members” (the second sentence of its mission). Despite a general agreement on the goal of providing care for all children, there are differences of opinion among its members when it comes to some of the details. The confusing topic of gender-affirmative care comes to mind. I am confident that as a group of thoughtful professionals, even in the face of wide differences, we can see the way to civil and productive discussions in the search for commonality.

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].

You’re familiar with DIY and DUI, but what associations do the initials DEI trigger in your thought processor? Your college is probably influenced by it. So is your medical school, as are many of the businesses whose advertisements bombard you on television and the internet. Your professional association is definitely involved with it.

In the words of one newspaper columnist, DEI is an “ideological framework” whose most recognizable buzz words are “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion.” In the case of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), DEI has taken the form of a hiring philosophy that accepts and respects its responsibility to create a workplace “where each person can fully contribute to the shared mission without discrimination or intimidation and each person is respected, supported, and provided the equal opportunity, regardless of race, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, religion, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression age, veteran status, immigration status, or disability.”.

As an organization representing its members, the AAP has issued a statement: “Celebrating the diversity of children and families and promoting nurturing, inclusive environments means actively opposing intolerance, bigotry, bias and discrimination” Further, the AAP says it is committed to using policy, advocacy, and education to encourage inclusivity and cultural effectiveness for all.”. Included in its recommendations to fulfill this commitment are efforts to diversify the pediatric workforce and eliminate race-based medicine.

For the AAP, its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion seems to be a good fit. The first line of its mission statement — “to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents and young adults” — is well focused and one that its members can agree upon. However, we are beginning to see and hear that on some college and university campuses DEI has worn out its welcome.

In academia, the decision to include a broad mix of students and faculty with diverse backgrounds and at the same time provide opportunities equitably has hit some serious bumps in the road. It’s unclear how much the chaos in the Middle East is to blame, However, for several years there have been unfortunate campus incidents when the invitation of controversial guest speakers has laid bare the widely different interpretations of exactly what “free speech” means.

From its hazy inception, DEI has been missing one key ingredient — commonality. If we are going to actively seek to include individuals from a variety of backgrounds, encourage them to celebrate their diversity, and offer them equitable opportunities, then at the same time we must make it clear that our overriding goal is to seek and encourage the civil discussion of what we all have in common. Neglecting this additional step of promoting commonality is a grave mistake.

One mustn’t be surprised that a group of individuals from diverse backgrounds will have differing opinions. Finding common ground will predictably be a challenge, but it can be done. It requires compromise and a commitment to civil discussion. Regrettably, DEI as a framework places so much emphasis on the individual and diversity that the critical concept of commonality has been lost. Ironically, true inclusion and equity can’t occur without a reverence for commonality.

The AAP has done a good job of folding DEI into fulfilling the first sentence of its mission statement. However, it must not lose sight of the critical ingredient of commonality as it seeks to “support the professional needs of its members” (the second sentence of its mission). Despite a general agreement on the goal of providing care for all children, there are differences of opinion among its members when it comes to some of the details. The confusing topic of gender-affirmative care comes to mind. I am confident that as a group of thoughtful professionals, even in the face of wide differences, we can see the way to civil and productive discussions in the search for commonality.

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].

The World Health Organization called the COVID-19 variant JN.1 a standalone “variant of interest” and said JN.1 will drive an increase in cases of the virus, the global health agency has announced.

JN.1 was previously grouped with its relative, BA.2.86, but has increased so much in the past 4 weeks that the WHO moved it to standalone status, according to a summary published by the agency. The prevalence of JN.1 worldwide jumped from 3% for the week ending November 5 to 27% for the week ending December 3. During that same period, JN.1 rose from 1% to 66% of cases in the Western Pacific, which stretches across 37 countries, from China and Mongolia to Australia and New Zealand.

In the United States, JN.1 has been increasing rapidly. The variant accounted for an estimated 21% of cases for the 2-week period ending December 9, up from 8% during the 2 weeks prior.

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID, and like other viruses, it evolves over time, sometimes changing how the virus affects people or how well existing treatments and vaccines work against it.

The WHO and CDC have said the current COVID vaccine appears to protect people against severe symptoms due to JN.1, and the WHO called the rising variant’s public health risk “low.”

“As we observe the rise of the JN.1 variant, it’s important to note that while it may be spreading more widely, there is currently no significant evidence suggesting it is more severe or that it poses a substantial public health risk,” John Brownstein, PhD, chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC News.

In its recent risk analysis, the WHO did acknowledge that it’s not certain whether JN.1 has a higher risk of evading immunity or causing more severe symptoms than other strains. The WHO advised countries to further study how much JN.1 can evade existing antibodies and whether the variant results in more severe disease.

The latest CDC data show that 11% of COVID tests reported to the agency are positive, and 23,432 people were hospitalized with severe symptoms within a 7-day period. The CDC urgently asked people to get vaccinated against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19 ahead of the holidays as cases rise nationwide.

“Getting vaccinated now can help prevent hospitalizations and save lives,” the agency advised.


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

The World Health Organization called the COVID-19 variant JN.1 a standalone “variant of interest” and said JN.1 will drive an increase in cases of the virus, the global health agency has announced.

JN.1 was previously grouped with its relative, BA.2.86, but has increased so much in the past 4 weeks that the WHO moved it to standalone status, according to a summary published by the agency. The prevalence of JN.1 worldwide jumped from 3% for the week ending November 5 to 27% for the week ending December 3. During that same period, JN.1 rose from 1% to 66% of cases in the Western Pacific, which stretches across 37 countries, from China and Mongolia to Australia and New Zealand.

In the United States, JN.1 has been increasing rapidly. The variant accounted for an estimated 21% of cases for the 2-week period ending December 9, up from 8% during the 2 weeks prior.

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID, and like other viruses, it evolves over time, sometimes changing how the virus affects people or how well existing treatments and vaccines work against it.

The WHO and CDC have said the current COVID vaccine appears to protect people against severe symptoms due to JN.1, and the WHO called the rising variant’s public health risk “low.”

“As we observe the rise of the JN.1 variant, it’s important to note that while it may be spreading more widely, there is currently no significant evidence suggesting it is more severe or that it poses a substantial public health risk,” John Brownstein, PhD, chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC News.

In its recent risk analysis, the WHO did acknowledge that it’s not certain whether JN.1 has a higher risk of evading immunity or causing more severe symptoms than other strains. The WHO advised countries to further study how much JN.1 can evade existing antibodies and whether the variant results in more severe disease.

The latest CDC data show that 11% of COVID tests reported to the agency are positive, and 23,432 people were hospitalized with severe symptoms within a 7-day period. The CDC urgently asked people to get vaccinated against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19 ahead of the holidays as cases rise nationwide.

“Getting vaccinated now can help prevent hospitalizations and save lives,” the agency advised.


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

The World Health Organization called the COVID-19 variant JN.1 a standalone “variant of interest” and said JN.1 will drive an increase in cases of the virus, the global health agency has announced.

JN.1 was previously grouped with its relative, BA.2.86, but has increased so much in the past 4 weeks that the WHO moved it to standalone status, according to a summary published by the agency. The prevalence of JN.1 worldwide jumped from 3% for the week ending November 5 to 27% for the week ending December 3. During that same period, JN.1 rose from 1% to 66% of cases in the Western Pacific, which stretches across 37 countries, from China and Mongolia to Australia and New Zealand.

In the United States, JN.1 has been increasing rapidly. The variant accounted for an estimated 21% of cases for the 2-week period ending December 9, up from 8% during the 2 weeks prior.

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID, and like other viruses, it evolves over time, sometimes changing how the virus affects people or how well existing treatments and vaccines work against it.

The WHO and CDC have said the current COVID vaccine appears to protect people against severe symptoms due to JN.1, and the WHO called the rising variant’s public health risk “low.”

“As we observe the rise of the JN.1 variant, it’s important to note that while it may be spreading more widely, there is currently no significant evidence suggesting it is more severe or that it poses a substantial public health risk,” John Brownstein, PhD, chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC News.

In its recent risk analysis, the WHO did acknowledge that it’s not certain whether JN.1 has a higher risk of evading immunity or causing more severe symptoms than other strains. The WHO advised countries to further study how much JN.1 can evade existing antibodies and whether the variant results in more severe disease.

The latest CDC data show that 11% of COVID tests reported to the agency are positive, and 23,432 people were hospitalized with severe symptoms within a 7-day period. The CDC urgently asked people to get vaccinated against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19 ahead of the holidays as cases rise nationwide.

“Getting vaccinated now can help prevent hospitalizations and save lives,” the agency advised.


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

Patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics have a low overall risk for developing the paradoxical symptoms of eczema, with interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors found to confer the lowest risk of the drug classes examined in a large observational analysis.

Using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) database, Ali Al-Janabi, MA, from the University of Manchester (England) and associates found that 273 (1%) of approximately 25,000 drug exposures in 13,699 biologic-treated patients with psoriasis were associated with paradoxical eczema.

The incidence of paradoxical eczema was found to vary by class. The highest rate was seen for IL-17 inhibitors, at 1.22 per 100,000 person-years, and the lowest rate was seen with IL-23 inhibitors, at 0.56 per 100,000 person-years. The respective incidence rates for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors were a respective 0.94 and 0.80 per 100,000 person-years.

“Compared with TNF inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitor exposure was associated with significantly lower risk of paradoxical eczema,” the BADBIR Study Group reported in JAMA Dermatology. Indeed, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors were 61% less likely than were those taking TNF-inhibitors to experience a paradoxical eczema event.

“These findings remained when restricting the analysis to first-line biologic exposures and were specific to this eczema phenotype” the group said.

Cautious Interpretation

As the corresponding author for the work, Mr. Al-Janabi observed in an email that the research needs to be replicated, and the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“As well as usual clinical variables influencing biologic selection, clinicians could consider IL-23 inhibitors in patients with previous atopic dermatitis, hay fever, or paradoxical eczema episodes, as this class was associated with the lowest risk of paradoxical eczema,” he suggested.

A prior history of atopic dermatitis (AD) and hay fever appears to be particularly relevant, as both substantially upped the chances that paradoxical eczema would occur, with hazard ratios of 12.40 and 3.78, respectively. Increasing age also increased the risk, albeit slightly (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 per year), and there was an apparent lower risk (HR, 0.60) comparing men and women.

The BADBIR Study Group authors believe that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first study to compare paradoxical eczema risk by biologic class. “Based on clinical experience and prevalence of eczematous reactions reported in some IL-17 inhibitor clinical trials, we suspected an association between IL-17 inhibitor exposure and paradoxical eczema,” they wrote.

“While the incidence of paradoxical eczema was numerically highest among IL-17 inhibitor exposures, it was not significantly different from the incidence among TNF inhibitor exposures.” The low overall incidence of paradoxical eczema “may be reassuring for patients and clinicians,” they added, “but it is possible that the incidence was underestimated due to underreporting or exclusion of adverse events with insufficient detail.”

Details of the Analysis, Other Findings

To explore the risk of paradoxical eczema by biologic class and identify possible risk factors, the BADBIR Study Group performed a prospective cohort study using data held within the BADBIR database between September 2007 and December 2022.

Adults over the age of 18 year or older with plaque psoriasis and who had been treated with at least one of the following biologics were eligible for inclusion: the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, and infliximab; the IL-17 inhibitors bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab; the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab; and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab.

Patient records and adverse event data were reviewed to determine the incidence of paradoxical eczema events, using terms such as eczema, eczematized, eczematous, atopy, atopic, and dermatitis.

Of 24,952 drug exposures analyzed, the majority (11,819) were for TNF inhibitors, followed by IL-17 inhibitors (4,776), IL-12/23 inhibitors (6,423), and finally, IL-23 inhibitors (1,934).

Mr. Al-Janabi and coauthors reported that the median time to onset of paradoxical eczema events was 294 days — approximately 9.8 months. The earliest that these events were recorded was at 120 days (4 months), and the latest at 699 days (almost 2 years).

The face and neck were the most common sites affected (26% of exposures), with other sites including the limbs (23%), the trunk (13%), and hands or feet (12%). Itching (18%), redness (7%), and dryness (4%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

The researchers noted that 21 patients had skin biopsies taken and “all showed spongiosis or a feature of eczema, with 1 having overlapping features of psoriasis.”

In the majority (92 %) of cases, patients experienced only one eczema event. Of the 20 patients who had more than one event, just over one-fifth of repeat events occurred after receiving the same biologic as for the index event. A quarter of events occurred after a different biologic of the same class had been used, and just over half of events occurred after a different class of biologic had been given.

Strengths and Limitations

The “large sample size and inclusion of multiple lines of exposure per participant” are strengths of the study, said the researchers. “We included data for all currently available biologics, originating from more than 160 dermatology centers in the UK and Ireland.”

They added, however, that the “main limitation is the small numbers of observations within certain subgroups, such as specific biologic exposures or participants in ethnic minority groups, restricting generalizability of our findings and the interpretation of some subgroup analyses.”

Moreover, the small number of paradoxical eczema events seen may have resulted in imprecise effect estimates, they observe, noting that the number of exposures to IL-23 inhibitors was low compared with other classes.

“Future studies with more exposures and paradoxical eczema events would enable a more robust analysis of individual drugs and patient subgroups,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. BADBIR is coordinated by The University of Manchester, and funded by the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD). The BAD receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Hexal AG, and UCB Pharma for providing pharmacovigilance services. This income finances a separate contract between the BAD and The University of Manchester, which coordinates BADBIR. Mr. Al-Janabi reported receiving grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from UCB, Almirall, and Janssen; and personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work.

Patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics have a low overall risk for developing the paradoxical symptoms of eczema, with interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors found to confer the lowest risk of the drug classes examined in a large observational analysis.

Using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) database, Ali Al-Janabi, MA, from the University of Manchester (England) and associates found that 273 (1%) of approximately 25,000 drug exposures in 13,699 biologic-treated patients with psoriasis were associated with paradoxical eczema.

The incidence of paradoxical eczema was found to vary by class. The highest rate was seen for IL-17 inhibitors, at 1.22 per 100,000 person-years, and the lowest rate was seen with IL-23 inhibitors, at 0.56 per 100,000 person-years. The respective incidence rates for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors were a respective 0.94 and 0.80 per 100,000 person-years.

“Compared with TNF inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitor exposure was associated with significantly lower risk of paradoxical eczema,” the BADBIR Study Group reported in JAMA Dermatology. Indeed, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors were 61% less likely than were those taking TNF-inhibitors to experience a paradoxical eczema event.

“These findings remained when restricting the analysis to first-line biologic exposures and were specific to this eczema phenotype” the group said.

Cautious Interpretation

As the corresponding author for the work, Mr. Al-Janabi observed in an email that the research needs to be replicated, and the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“As well as usual clinical variables influencing biologic selection, clinicians could consider IL-23 inhibitors in patients with previous atopic dermatitis, hay fever, or paradoxical eczema episodes, as this class was associated with the lowest risk of paradoxical eczema,” he suggested.

A prior history of atopic dermatitis (AD) and hay fever appears to be particularly relevant, as both substantially upped the chances that paradoxical eczema would occur, with hazard ratios of 12.40 and 3.78, respectively. Increasing age also increased the risk, albeit slightly (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 per year), and there was an apparent lower risk (HR, 0.60) comparing men and women.

The BADBIR Study Group authors believe that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first study to compare paradoxical eczema risk by biologic class. “Based on clinical experience and prevalence of eczematous reactions reported in some IL-17 inhibitor clinical trials, we suspected an association between IL-17 inhibitor exposure and paradoxical eczema,” they wrote.

“While the incidence of paradoxical eczema was numerically highest among IL-17 inhibitor exposures, it was not significantly different from the incidence among TNF inhibitor exposures.” The low overall incidence of paradoxical eczema “may be reassuring for patients and clinicians,” they added, “but it is possible that the incidence was underestimated due to underreporting or exclusion of adverse events with insufficient detail.”

Details of the Analysis, Other Findings

To explore the risk of paradoxical eczema by biologic class and identify possible risk factors, the BADBIR Study Group performed a prospective cohort study using data held within the BADBIR database between September 2007 and December 2022.

Adults over the age of 18 year or older with plaque psoriasis and who had been treated with at least one of the following biologics were eligible for inclusion: the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, and infliximab; the IL-17 inhibitors bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab; the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab; and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab.

Patient records and adverse event data were reviewed to determine the incidence of paradoxical eczema events, using terms such as eczema, eczematized, eczematous, atopy, atopic, and dermatitis.

Of 24,952 drug exposures analyzed, the majority (11,819) were for TNF inhibitors, followed by IL-17 inhibitors (4,776), IL-12/23 inhibitors (6,423), and finally, IL-23 inhibitors (1,934).

Mr. Al-Janabi and coauthors reported that the median time to onset of paradoxical eczema events was 294 days — approximately 9.8 months. The earliest that these events were recorded was at 120 days (4 months), and the latest at 699 days (almost 2 years).

The face and neck were the most common sites affected (26% of exposures), with other sites including the limbs (23%), the trunk (13%), and hands or feet (12%). Itching (18%), redness (7%), and dryness (4%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

The researchers noted that 21 patients had skin biopsies taken and “all showed spongiosis or a feature of eczema, with 1 having overlapping features of psoriasis.”

In the majority (92 %) of cases, patients experienced only one eczema event. Of the 20 patients who had more than one event, just over one-fifth of repeat events occurred after receiving the same biologic as for the index event. A quarter of events occurred after a different biologic of the same class had been used, and just over half of events occurred after a different class of biologic had been given.

Strengths and Limitations

The “large sample size and inclusion of multiple lines of exposure per participant” are strengths of the study, said the researchers. “We included data for all currently available biologics, originating from more than 160 dermatology centers in the UK and Ireland.”

They added, however, that the “main limitation is the small numbers of observations within certain subgroups, such as specific biologic exposures or participants in ethnic minority groups, restricting generalizability of our findings and the interpretation of some subgroup analyses.”

Moreover, the small number of paradoxical eczema events seen may have resulted in imprecise effect estimates, they observe, noting that the number of exposures to IL-23 inhibitors was low compared with other classes.

“Future studies with more exposures and paradoxical eczema events would enable a more robust analysis of individual drugs and patient subgroups,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. BADBIR is coordinated by The University of Manchester, and funded by the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD). The BAD receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Hexal AG, and UCB Pharma for providing pharmacovigilance services. This income finances a separate contract between the BAD and The University of Manchester, which coordinates BADBIR. Mr. Al-Janabi reported receiving grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from UCB, Almirall, and Janssen; and personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work.

Patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics have a low overall risk for developing the paradoxical symptoms of eczema, with interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors found to confer the lowest risk of the drug classes examined in a large observational analysis.

Using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) database, Ali Al-Janabi, MA, from the University of Manchester (England) and associates found that 273 (1%) of approximately 25,000 drug exposures in 13,699 biologic-treated patients with psoriasis were associated with paradoxical eczema.

The incidence of paradoxical eczema was found to vary by class. The highest rate was seen for IL-17 inhibitors, at 1.22 per 100,000 person-years, and the lowest rate was seen with IL-23 inhibitors, at 0.56 per 100,000 person-years. The respective incidence rates for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors were a respective 0.94 and 0.80 per 100,000 person-years.

“Compared with TNF inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitor exposure was associated with significantly lower risk of paradoxical eczema,” the BADBIR Study Group reported in JAMA Dermatology. Indeed, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors were 61% less likely than were those taking TNF-inhibitors to experience a paradoxical eczema event.

“These findings remained when restricting the analysis to first-line biologic exposures and were specific to this eczema phenotype” the group said.

Cautious Interpretation

As the corresponding author for the work, Mr. Al-Janabi observed in an email that the research needs to be replicated, and the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“As well as usual clinical variables influencing biologic selection, clinicians could consider IL-23 inhibitors in patients with previous atopic dermatitis, hay fever, or paradoxical eczema episodes, as this class was associated with the lowest risk of paradoxical eczema,” he suggested.

A prior history of atopic dermatitis (AD) and hay fever appears to be particularly relevant, as both substantially upped the chances that paradoxical eczema would occur, with hazard ratios of 12.40 and 3.78, respectively. Increasing age also increased the risk, albeit slightly (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 per year), and there was an apparent lower risk (HR, 0.60) comparing men and women.

The BADBIR Study Group authors believe that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first study to compare paradoxical eczema risk by biologic class. “Based on clinical experience and prevalence of eczematous reactions reported in some IL-17 inhibitor clinical trials, we suspected an association between IL-17 inhibitor exposure and paradoxical eczema,” they wrote.

“While the incidence of paradoxical eczema was numerically highest among IL-17 inhibitor exposures, it was not significantly different from the incidence among TNF inhibitor exposures.” The low overall incidence of paradoxical eczema “may be reassuring for patients and clinicians,” they added, “but it is possible that the incidence was underestimated due to underreporting or exclusion of adverse events with insufficient detail.”

Details of the Analysis, Other Findings

To explore the risk of paradoxical eczema by biologic class and identify possible risk factors, the BADBIR Study Group performed a prospective cohort study using data held within the BADBIR database between September 2007 and December 2022.

Adults over the age of 18 year or older with plaque psoriasis and who had been treated with at least one of the following biologics were eligible for inclusion: the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, and infliximab; the IL-17 inhibitors bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab; the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab; and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab.

Patient records and adverse event data were reviewed to determine the incidence of paradoxical eczema events, using terms such as eczema, eczematized, eczematous, atopy, atopic, and dermatitis.

Of 24,952 drug exposures analyzed, the majority (11,819) were for TNF inhibitors, followed by IL-17 inhibitors (4,776), IL-12/23 inhibitors (6,423), and finally, IL-23 inhibitors (1,934).

Mr. Al-Janabi and coauthors reported that the median time to onset of paradoxical eczema events was 294 days — approximately 9.8 months. The earliest that these events were recorded was at 120 days (4 months), and the latest at 699 days (almost 2 years).

The face and neck were the most common sites affected (26% of exposures), with other sites including the limbs (23%), the trunk (13%), and hands or feet (12%). Itching (18%), redness (7%), and dryness (4%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

The researchers noted that 21 patients had skin biopsies taken and “all showed spongiosis or a feature of eczema, with 1 having overlapping features of psoriasis.”

In the majority (92 %) of cases, patients experienced only one eczema event. Of the 20 patients who had more than one event, just over one-fifth of repeat events occurred after receiving the same biologic as for the index event. A quarter of events occurred after a different biologic of the same class had been used, and just over half of events occurred after a different class of biologic had been given.

Strengths and Limitations

The “large sample size and inclusion of multiple lines of exposure per participant” are strengths of the study, said the researchers. “We included data for all currently available biologics, originating from more than 160 dermatology centers in the UK and Ireland.”

They added, however, that the “main limitation is the small numbers of observations within certain subgroups, such as specific biologic exposures or participants in ethnic minority groups, restricting generalizability of our findings and the interpretation of some subgroup analyses.”

Moreover, the small number of paradoxical eczema events seen may have resulted in imprecise effect estimates, they observe, noting that the number of exposures to IL-23 inhibitors was low compared with other classes.

“Future studies with more exposures and paradoxical eczema events would enable a more robust analysis of individual drugs and patient subgroups,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. BADBIR is coordinated by The University of Manchester, and funded by the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD). The BAD receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Hexal AG, and UCB Pharma for providing pharmacovigilance services. This income finances a separate contract between the BAD and The University of Manchester, which coordinates BADBIR. Mr. Al-Janabi reported receiving grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from UCB, Almirall, and Janssen; and personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work.

Severe obesity among preschool-age children from low-income families is on the rise in the United States, according to a new analysis of federal data.

An estimated 2% of children ages 2 to 4 years old had severe obesity in 2020, up from 1.8% in 2016, according to the report that appeared Dec. 18 in Pediatrics, a journal published by the American Academy of Pediatrics. 

The increase is “small but significant,” a group of experts not involved in the research wrote in a companion commentary published alongside the research.

The new data put an end to hopes that childhood obesity was on the retreat following a small decrease in rates from 2010 to 2016. Instead, the researchers noted that the new childhood obesity figures reflect those of the general population. In the United States, about 20% of children and teens are obese, and about 42% of adults are obese, according to the CDC.

This latest study looked for severe obesity, which was defined as being well above the 95th percentile for the combined height-weight measure known as body mass index. The figures are important because rates of severe obesity among young children can foreshadow health problems that may occur on a scale to warrant concerns among public health officials, policymakers, and health care professionals.

Compared with children who have moderate obesity, children with severe obesity “are at a greater risk of various health complications, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, and premature death,” the study authors wrote.

The largest increases from 2016 to 2020 in severe obesity were observed among 4-year-olds and among Hispanic children. When looking at state-level data, Alaska was the only state to report a decline in severe obesity among young children from 2016 to 2020.

The new estimates were drawn from data on children enrolled in the federal Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

“WIC is a federal assistance program that provides healthy foods, nutrition education, health care referrals, and other services to millions of low-income pregnant and postpartum women, as well as infants and children up to age 5, who are at nutritional risk,” the researchers noted.

The new figures indicate 16.6 million children ages 2 to 4 years old have severe obesity. Having severe obesity at these early ages is “nearly irreversible,” the authors of the commentary article noted, adding that little research exists that indicates how to effectively treat obesity before age 6.

“The study underscores the need for ongoing monitoring ... post pandemic of children’s health status,” a news release from the American Academy of Pediatrics stated. “It also further supports the need for children and families from households with lower incomes across the nation to have access to early clinical detection, such as health care screenings and referrals to effective family-based interventions to support healthy growth.”
 

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

Severe obesity among preschool-age children from low-income families is on the rise in the United States, according to a new analysis of federal data.

An estimated 2% of children ages 2 to 4 years old had severe obesity in 2020, up from 1.8% in 2016, according to the report that appeared Dec. 18 in Pediatrics, a journal published by the American Academy of Pediatrics. 

The increase is “small but significant,” a group of experts not involved in the research wrote in a companion commentary published alongside the research.

The new data put an end to hopes that childhood obesity was on the retreat following a small decrease in rates from 2010 to 2016. Instead, the researchers noted that the new childhood obesity figures reflect those of the general population. In the United States, about 20% of children and teens are obese, and about 42% of adults are obese, according to the CDC.

This latest study looked for severe obesity, which was defined as being well above the 95th percentile for the combined height-weight measure known as body mass index. The figures are important because rates of severe obesity among young children can foreshadow health problems that may occur on a scale to warrant concerns among public health officials, policymakers, and health care professionals.

Compared with children who have moderate obesity, children with severe obesity “are at a greater risk of various health complications, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, and premature death,” the study authors wrote.

The largest increases from 2016 to 2020 in severe obesity were observed among 4-year-olds and among Hispanic children. When looking at state-level data, Alaska was the only state to report a decline in severe obesity among young children from 2016 to 2020.

The new estimates were drawn from data on children enrolled in the federal Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

“WIC is a federal assistance program that provides healthy foods, nutrition education, health care referrals, and other services to millions of low-income pregnant and postpartum women, as well as infants and children up to age 5, who are at nutritional risk,” the researchers noted.

The new figures indicate 16.6 million children ages 2 to 4 years old have severe obesity. Having severe obesity at these early ages is “nearly irreversible,” the authors of the commentary article noted, adding that little research exists that indicates how to effectively treat obesity before age 6.

“The study underscores the need for ongoing monitoring ... post pandemic of children’s health status,” a news release from the American Academy of Pediatrics stated. “It also further supports the need for children and families from households with lower incomes across the nation to have access to early clinical detection, such as health care screenings and referrals to effective family-based interventions to support healthy growth.”
 

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

Severe obesity among preschool-age children from low-income families is on the rise in the United States, according to a new analysis of federal data.

An estimated 2% of children ages 2 to 4 years old had severe obesity in 2020, up from 1.8% in 2016, according to the report that appeared Dec. 18 in Pediatrics, a journal published by the American Academy of Pediatrics. 

The increase is “small but significant,” a group of experts not involved in the research wrote in a companion commentary published alongside the research.

The new data put an end to hopes that childhood obesity was on the retreat following a small decrease in rates from 2010 to 2016. Instead, the researchers noted that the new childhood obesity figures reflect those of the general population. In the United States, about 20% of children and teens are obese, and about 42% of adults are obese, according to the CDC.

This latest study looked for severe obesity, which was defined as being well above the 95th percentile for the combined height-weight measure known as body mass index. The figures are important because rates of severe obesity among young children can foreshadow health problems that may occur on a scale to warrant concerns among public health officials, policymakers, and health care professionals.

Compared with children who have moderate obesity, children with severe obesity “are at a greater risk of various health complications, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, and premature death,” the study authors wrote.

The largest increases from 2016 to 2020 in severe obesity were observed among 4-year-olds and among Hispanic children. When looking at state-level data, Alaska was the only state to report a decline in severe obesity among young children from 2016 to 2020.

The new estimates were drawn from data on children enrolled in the federal Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

“WIC is a federal assistance program that provides healthy foods, nutrition education, health care referrals, and other services to millions of low-income pregnant and postpartum women, as well as infants and children up to age 5, who are at nutritional risk,” the researchers noted.

The new figures indicate 16.6 million children ages 2 to 4 years old have severe obesity. Having severe obesity at these early ages is “nearly irreversible,” the authors of the commentary article noted, adding that little research exists that indicates how to effectively treat obesity before age 6.

“The study underscores the need for ongoing monitoring ... post pandemic of children’s health status,” a news release from the American Academy of Pediatrics stated. “It also further supports the need for children and families from households with lower incomes across the nation to have access to early clinical detection, such as health care screenings and referrals to effective family-based interventions to support healthy growth.”
 

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

Pediatric rheumatologists are calling a “Code (p)RED” — a pediatric rheumatology educational deficit.

There are too few pediatric rheumatologists to meet patient demand in the United States, and projections suggest that gap will continue to widen. Disappointing match trends also reflect issues with recruitment: Since 2019, only 50%-75% of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions have been filled each year. For 2024, the subspecialty filled 32 of 52 positions.

University of Minnesota

Lack of exposure during medical school and residency, financial concerns, and a lengthy, research-focused fellowship are seen as major contributors to the workforce shortage, and novel solutions are needed to close the gap, experts argued in a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“It’s so important now to get ahead of this because what I’m afraid of is in 10-20 years, we’re not going to have a field,” Colleen Correll, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the division of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization.
 

Growing Demand, Falling Supply

Because the subspecialty was officially recognized by the American Board of Pediatrics in 1991, “it’s always been a small group of providers,” Dr. Correll said. “It’s honestly always been a recognized issue in our field.”

But a 2022 report by the ACR on the pediatric workforce has brought more attention to the issue. Dr. Correll led the study and is the chair of ACR›s Pediatric Rheumatology Committee. According to the report, an estimated 287 pediatric rheumatologists were working as full-time clinicians in 2015, while the estimated demand was 382 providers. By 2030, this projected supply of pediatric rheumatologists fell to 261, while demand rose to 461 full-time providers.

The distribution of pediatric rheumatologists is also an issue. It’s generally thought that there should be at least one pediatric rheumatologist per 100,000 children, Dr. Correll explained. According to ACR estimates, the northeast region had approximately 0.83 pediatric rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015, while the south central and southwest regions had 0.17 and 0.20 providers per 100,000 children, respectively. Projected estimates for 2030 dipped to 0.04 or lower for the south central, southwest, and southeast regions.

A separate study from the American Board of Pediatrics, also led by Dr. Correll, that is still under review offered more optimistic projections, suggesting that there would be a 75% increase in pediatric rheumatologists from 0.27 per 100,000 children in 2020 to 0.47 per 100,000 children in 2040.

“This does look better than the ACR study, though 0.47 is still a really small number and an inadequate number to treat our children in need,” she said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Lack of Exposure During Medical Education

Few medical schools have pediatric rheumatology built into their curriculum, whether that is a whole course or a single lecture, said Jay Mehta, MD, who directs the pediatric rheumatology fellowship at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Mehta, for example, did not know that pediatric rheumatology was a field before entering residency, he said. But residencies can also lack exposure: An estimated one third of residencies do not have a single pediatric rheumatologist on staff, he said.

Children&#039;s Hospital of Philadelphia

“Those are places where people aren’t necessarily getting exposure to pediatric rheumatology,” he told this news organization, “and we know that if you’re not exposed to a field, it’s very, very unlikely that you will go into that field.”

The ACR’s Pediatric Rheumatology Residency Program is one way that the organization is working to address this issue. The program sends pediatric residents with an interest in rheumatology to the ACR annual meeting. The Rheumatology Research Foundation also runs a visiting professorship program, where a pediatric rheumatologist conducts a rheumatology education forum at an institution with no pediatric rheumatology program.

“I’ve done it a couple of times,” Dr. Mehta said during his presentation at the annual meeting. “It’s one of the most rewarding things I’ve done.”
 

Financial Concerns

Additionally, although pediatric rheumatology requires more training, these subspecialists will likely make less than their general pediatric colleagues over their career. According to one study in Pediatrics, a pediatric resident pursuing rheumatology is projected to make $1.2 million dollars less over the course of their career compared with someone who started their career in general pediatrics immediately after residency. (Negative financial returns were also found for all pediatric subspecialities except for cardiology, critical care, and neonatology.)

This lower earning potential is likely a deterrent, especially for those with educational debt. In one analysis published in October, medical students with at least $200,000 in education debt were 43% more likely to go into higher-paying pediatric subspecialities than those with no debt. Nearly three out of four medical graduates have education debt, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges, with a median debt of $200,000.

While the Pediatric Specialty Loan Repayment Program was specifically designed to aid pediatric subspecialists with their educational debt, qualifying for the program is difficult for pediatric rheumatologists, explained Kristen N. Hayward, MD, of Seattle Children’s in Washington. The program provides up to $100,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 3 years of practicing in an underserved area; however, the program stipulates that providers must provide full-time (40 hours per week) clinical care. At academic institutions, where most pediatric rheumatologists practice, there is usually a research component to their position, and even if a provider works the equivalent of 40 hours per week in a clinic in addition to their research, they don’t qualify for the program, Dr. Hayward said.

“It’s very difficult to find someone who’s actually only doing clinical work,” she said.

The ACR has worked to combat some of these economic constraints by demonstrating the direct and downstream value of rheumatologic care, Dr. Hayward said. In a recent white paper, it was estimated that including office visits, consultations, lab testing, and radiology services, one full-time equivalent rheumatologist generates $3.5 million in revenue every year and saves health systems more than $2700 per patient per year.

In addition to placing greater value on rheumatologic care, the healthcare system also needs to recognize the current nonbillable hours that pediatric rheumatologists spend taking care of patients, Dr. Hayward noted.

Especially with electronic medical records (EMRs) and online communication with patients, “there is increasingly a lot of patient care that happens outside of clinic and that takes a lot of time,” Dr. Hayward said. For example, she spends between 1 and 2 hours every day in the EMR refilling medications and responding to patient concerns, and “that all is done in my spare time,” she said. “That’s not billed to the patient in anyway.”
 

Length of Fellowship

The pediatric rheumatology fellowship is a 3-year program — like other pediatric subspecialities — with a research requirement. By comparison, adult rheumatology fellowships are 2 years, and fellows can pursue additional research training if they have a strong interest.

“It sounds like just 1 more year, but I think it’s coming at a really pivotal point in people’s lives, and that 1 year can make a huge difference,” Dr. Hayward explained.

The 2 years of research might also be a deterrent for individuals who know they are only interested in clinical work, she added. About half of pediatric subspecialists only pursue clinical work after graduation, according to a recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) focused on the future pediatric physician workforce.

Additionally, only 17% of pediatric rheumatologists spend more than half of their time in research, said Fred Rivara, MD, MPH, chair of the NASEM report, in a statement included in Dr. Hayward’s ACR presentation. The report, which recommended strategies to bolster the pediatric workforce, argued that the American Board of Pediatrics should develop alternative training pathways, including 2-year, clinically heavy fellowships.

The ACR workforce team is also exploring alternative training models like competency-based education, Dr. Hayward said. The Education in Pediatrics Across the Continuum project is already using this approach from medical school to pediatric residency. While this type of outcome-based program has not been tried at the fellowship level, «this has been done, it could be done, and I think we could learn from our colleagues about how they have done this successfully,» she noted.

Ultimately, Dr. Hayward emphasized that there needs to be a “sea change” to close the workforce gap — with multiple interventions addressing these individual challenges.

“Unless we all pitch in and find one way that we can all move this issue forward, we are going to be drowning in a sea of Epic inbox messages,” she said, “and never get to see the patients we want to see.”

Dr. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer. Dr. Correll and Dr. Mehta had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatric rheumatologists are calling a “Code (p)RED” — a pediatric rheumatology educational deficit.

There are too few pediatric rheumatologists to meet patient demand in the United States, and projections suggest that gap will continue to widen. Disappointing match trends also reflect issues with recruitment: Since 2019, only 50%-75% of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions have been filled each year. For 2024, the subspecialty filled 32 of 52 positions.

University of Minnesota

Lack of exposure during medical school and residency, financial concerns, and a lengthy, research-focused fellowship are seen as major contributors to the workforce shortage, and novel solutions are needed to close the gap, experts argued in a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“It’s so important now to get ahead of this because what I’m afraid of is in 10-20 years, we’re not going to have a field,” Colleen Correll, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the division of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization.
 

Growing Demand, Falling Supply

Because the subspecialty was officially recognized by the American Board of Pediatrics in 1991, “it’s always been a small group of providers,” Dr. Correll said. “It’s honestly always been a recognized issue in our field.”

But a 2022 report by the ACR on the pediatric workforce has brought more attention to the issue. Dr. Correll led the study and is the chair of ACR›s Pediatric Rheumatology Committee. According to the report, an estimated 287 pediatric rheumatologists were working as full-time clinicians in 2015, while the estimated demand was 382 providers. By 2030, this projected supply of pediatric rheumatologists fell to 261, while demand rose to 461 full-time providers.

The distribution of pediatric rheumatologists is also an issue. It’s generally thought that there should be at least one pediatric rheumatologist per 100,000 children, Dr. Correll explained. According to ACR estimates, the northeast region had approximately 0.83 pediatric rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015, while the south central and southwest regions had 0.17 and 0.20 providers per 100,000 children, respectively. Projected estimates for 2030 dipped to 0.04 or lower for the south central, southwest, and southeast regions.

A separate study from the American Board of Pediatrics, also led by Dr. Correll, that is still under review offered more optimistic projections, suggesting that there would be a 75% increase in pediatric rheumatologists from 0.27 per 100,000 children in 2020 to 0.47 per 100,000 children in 2040.

“This does look better than the ACR study, though 0.47 is still a really small number and an inadequate number to treat our children in need,” she said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Lack of Exposure During Medical Education

Few medical schools have pediatric rheumatology built into their curriculum, whether that is a whole course or a single lecture, said Jay Mehta, MD, who directs the pediatric rheumatology fellowship at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Mehta, for example, did not know that pediatric rheumatology was a field before entering residency, he said. But residencies can also lack exposure: An estimated one third of residencies do not have a single pediatric rheumatologist on staff, he said.

Children&#039;s Hospital of Philadelphia

“Those are places where people aren’t necessarily getting exposure to pediatric rheumatology,” he told this news organization, “and we know that if you’re not exposed to a field, it’s very, very unlikely that you will go into that field.”

The ACR’s Pediatric Rheumatology Residency Program is one way that the organization is working to address this issue. The program sends pediatric residents with an interest in rheumatology to the ACR annual meeting. The Rheumatology Research Foundation also runs a visiting professorship program, where a pediatric rheumatologist conducts a rheumatology education forum at an institution with no pediatric rheumatology program.

“I’ve done it a couple of times,” Dr. Mehta said during his presentation at the annual meeting. “It’s one of the most rewarding things I’ve done.”
 

Financial Concerns

Additionally, although pediatric rheumatology requires more training, these subspecialists will likely make less than their general pediatric colleagues over their career. According to one study in Pediatrics, a pediatric resident pursuing rheumatology is projected to make $1.2 million dollars less over the course of their career compared with someone who started their career in general pediatrics immediately after residency. (Negative financial returns were also found for all pediatric subspecialities except for cardiology, critical care, and neonatology.)

This lower earning potential is likely a deterrent, especially for those with educational debt. In one analysis published in October, medical students with at least $200,000 in education debt were 43% more likely to go into higher-paying pediatric subspecialities than those with no debt. Nearly three out of four medical graduates have education debt, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges, with a median debt of $200,000.

While the Pediatric Specialty Loan Repayment Program was specifically designed to aid pediatric subspecialists with their educational debt, qualifying for the program is difficult for pediatric rheumatologists, explained Kristen N. Hayward, MD, of Seattle Children’s in Washington. The program provides up to $100,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 3 years of practicing in an underserved area; however, the program stipulates that providers must provide full-time (40 hours per week) clinical care. At academic institutions, where most pediatric rheumatologists practice, there is usually a research component to their position, and even if a provider works the equivalent of 40 hours per week in a clinic in addition to their research, they don’t qualify for the program, Dr. Hayward said.

“It’s very difficult to find someone who’s actually only doing clinical work,” she said.

The ACR has worked to combat some of these economic constraints by demonstrating the direct and downstream value of rheumatologic care, Dr. Hayward said. In a recent white paper, it was estimated that including office visits, consultations, lab testing, and radiology services, one full-time equivalent rheumatologist generates $3.5 million in revenue every year and saves health systems more than $2700 per patient per year.

In addition to placing greater value on rheumatologic care, the healthcare system also needs to recognize the current nonbillable hours that pediatric rheumatologists spend taking care of patients, Dr. Hayward noted.

Especially with electronic medical records (EMRs) and online communication with patients, “there is increasingly a lot of patient care that happens outside of clinic and that takes a lot of time,” Dr. Hayward said. For example, she spends between 1 and 2 hours every day in the EMR refilling medications and responding to patient concerns, and “that all is done in my spare time,” she said. “That’s not billed to the patient in anyway.”
 

Length of Fellowship

The pediatric rheumatology fellowship is a 3-year program — like other pediatric subspecialities — with a research requirement. By comparison, adult rheumatology fellowships are 2 years, and fellows can pursue additional research training if they have a strong interest.

“It sounds like just 1 more year, but I think it’s coming at a really pivotal point in people’s lives, and that 1 year can make a huge difference,” Dr. Hayward explained.

The 2 years of research might also be a deterrent for individuals who know they are only interested in clinical work, she added. About half of pediatric subspecialists only pursue clinical work after graduation, according to a recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) focused on the future pediatric physician workforce.

Additionally, only 17% of pediatric rheumatologists spend more than half of their time in research, said Fred Rivara, MD, MPH, chair of the NASEM report, in a statement included in Dr. Hayward’s ACR presentation. The report, which recommended strategies to bolster the pediatric workforce, argued that the American Board of Pediatrics should develop alternative training pathways, including 2-year, clinically heavy fellowships.

The ACR workforce team is also exploring alternative training models like competency-based education, Dr. Hayward said. The Education in Pediatrics Across the Continuum project is already using this approach from medical school to pediatric residency. While this type of outcome-based program has not been tried at the fellowship level, «this has been done, it could be done, and I think we could learn from our colleagues about how they have done this successfully,» she noted.

Ultimately, Dr. Hayward emphasized that there needs to be a “sea change” to close the workforce gap — with multiple interventions addressing these individual challenges.

“Unless we all pitch in and find one way that we can all move this issue forward, we are going to be drowning in a sea of Epic inbox messages,” she said, “and never get to see the patients we want to see.”

Dr. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer. Dr. Correll and Dr. Mehta had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatric rheumatologists are calling a “Code (p)RED” — a pediatric rheumatology educational deficit.

There are too few pediatric rheumatologists to meet patient demand in the United States, and projections suggest that gap will continue to widen. Disappointing match trends also reflect issues with recruitment: Since 2019, only 50%-75% of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions have been filled each year. For 2024, the subspecialty filled 32 of 52 positions.

University of Minnesota

Lack of exposure during medical school and residency, financial concerns, and a lengthy, research-focused fellowship are seen as major contributors to the workforce shortage, and novel solutions are needed to close the gap, experts argued in a recent presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“It’s so important now to get ahead of this because what I’m afraid of is in 10-20 years, we’re not going to have a field,” Colleen Correll, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the division of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization.
 

Growing Demand, Falling Supply

Because the subspecialty was officially recognized by the American Board of Pediatrics in 1991, “it’s always been a small group of providers,” Dr. Correll said. “It’s honestly always been a recognized issue in our field.”

But a 2022 report by the ACR on the pediatric workforce has brought more attention to the issue. Dr. Correll led the study and is the chair of ACR›s Pediatric Rheumatology Committee. According to the report, an estimated 287 pediatric rheumatologists were working as full-time clinicians in 2015, while the estimated demand was 382 providers. By 2030, this projected supply of pediatric rheumatologists fell to 261, while demand rose to 461 full-time providers.

The distribution of pediatric rheumatologists is also an issue. It’s generally thought that there should be at least one pediatric rheumatologist per 100,000 children, Dr. Correll explained. According to ACR estimates, the northeast region had approximately 0.83 pediatric rheumatologists per 100,000 in 2015, while the south central and southwest regions had 0.17 and 0.20 providers per 100,000 children, respectively. Projected estimates for 2030 dipped to 0.04 or lower for the south central, southwest, and southeast regions.

A separate study from the American Board of Pediatrics, also led by Dr. Correll, that is still under review offered more optimistic projections, suggesting that there would be a 75% increase in pediatric rheumatologists from 0.27 per 100,000 children in 2020 to 0.47 per 100,000 children in 2040.

“This does look better than the ACR study, though 0.47 is still a really small number and an inadequate number to treat our children in need,” she said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Lack of Exposure During Medical Education

Few medical schools have pediatric rheumatology built into their curriculum, whether that is a whole course or a single lecture, said Jay Mehta, MD, who directs the pediatric rheumatology fellowship at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Mehta, for example, did not know that pediatric rheumatology was a field before entering residency, he said. But residencies can also lack exposure: An estimated one third of residencies do not have a single pediatric rheumatologist on staff, he said.

Children&#039;s Hospital of Philadelphia

“Those are places where people aren’t necessarily getting exposure to pediatric rheumatology,” he told this news organization, “and we know that if you’re not exposed to a field, it’s very, very unlikely that you will go into that field.”

The ACR’s Pediatric Rheumatology Residency Program is one way that the organization is working to address this issue. The program sends pediatric residents with an interest in rheumatology to the ACR annual meeting. The Rheumatology Research Foundation also runs a visiting professorship program, where a pediatric rheumatologist conducts a rheumatology education forum at an institution with no pediatric rheumatology program.

“I’ve done it a couple of times,” Dr. Mehta said during his presentation at the annual meeting. “It’s one of the most rewarding things I’ve done.”
 

Financial Concerns

Additionally, although pediatric rheumatology requires more training, these subspecialists will likely make less than their general pediatric colleagues over their career. According to one study in Pediatrics, a pediatric resident pursuing rheumatology is projected to make $1.2 million dollars less over the course of their career compared with someone who started their career in general pediatrics immediately after residency. (Negative financial returns were also found for all pediatric subspecialities except for cardiology, critical care, and neonatology.)

This lower earning potential is likely a deterrent, especially for those with educational debt. In one analysis published in October, medical students with at least $200,000 in education debt were 43% more likely to go into higher-paying pediatric subspecialities than those with no debt. Nearly three out of four medical graduates have education debt, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges, with a median debt of $200,000.

While the Pediatric Specialty Loan Repayment Program was specifically designed to aid pediatric subspecialists with their educational debt, qualifying for the program is difficult for pediatric rheumatologists, explained Kristen N. Hayward, MD, of Seattle Children’s in Washington. The program provides up to $100,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 3 years of practicing in an underserved area; however, the program stipulates that providers must provide full-time (40 hours per week) clinical care. At academic institutions, where most pediatric rheumatologists practice, there is usually a research component to their position, and even if a provider works the equivalent of 40 hours per week in a clinic in addition to their research, they don’t qualify for the program, Dr. Hayward said.

“It’s very difficult to find someone who’s actually only doing clinical work,” she said.

The ACR has worked to combat some of these economic constraints by demonstrating the direct and downstream value of rheumatologic care, Dr. Hayward said. In a recent white paper, it was estimated that including office visits, consultations, lab testing, and radiology services, one full-time equivalent rheumatologist generates $3.5 million in revenue every year and saves health systems more than $2700 per patient per year.

In addition to placing greater value on rheumatologic care, the healthcare system also needs to recognize the current nonbillable hours that pediatric rheumatologists spend taking care of patients, Dr. Hayward noted.

Especially with electronic medical records (EMRs) and online communication with patients, “there is increasingly a lot of patient care that happens outside of clinic and that takes a lot of time,” Dr. Hayward said. For example, she spends between 1 and 2 hours every day in the EMR refilling medications and responding to patient concerns, and “that all is done in my spare time,” she said. “That’s not billed to the patient in anyway.”
 

Length of Fellowship

The pediatric rheumatology fellowship is a 3-year program — like other pediatric subspecialities — with a research requirement. By comparison, adult rheumatology fellowships are 2 years, and fellows can pursue additional research training if they have a strong interest.

“It sounds like just 1 more year, but I think it’s coming at a really pivotal point in people’s lives, and that 1 year can make a huge difference,” Dr. Hayward explained.

The 2 years of research might also be a deterrent for individuals who know they are only interested in clinical work, she added. About half of pediatric subspecialists only pursue clinical work after graduation, according to a recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) focused on the future pediatric physician workforce.

Additionally, only 17% of pediatric rheumatologists spend more than half of their time in research, said Fred Rivara, MD, MPH, chair of the NASEM report, in a statement included in Dr. Hayward’s ACR presentation. The report, which recommended strategies to bolster the pediatric workforce, argued that the American Board of Pediatrics should develop alternative training pathways, including 2-year, clinically heavy fellowships.

The ACR workforce team is also exploring alternative training models like competency-based education, Dr. Hayward said. The Education in Pediatrics Across the Continuum project is already using this approach from medical school to pediatric residency. While this type of outcome-based program has not been tried at the fellowship level, «this has been done, it could be done, and I think we could learn from our colleagues about how they have done this successfully,» she noted.

Ultimately, Dr. Hayward emphasized that there needs to be a “sea change” to close the workforce gap — with multiple interventions addressing these individual challenges.

“Unless we all pitch in and find one way that we can all move this issue forward, we are going to be drowning in a sea of Epic inbox messages,” she said, “and never get to see the patients we want to see.”

Dr. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer. Dr. Correll and Dr. Mehta had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Battles Ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Patients Shopping?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Battles Ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Patients Shopping?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Battles Ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Patients Shopping?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a foam formulation of roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitor, for the treatment of seborrheic dermatitis, the manufacturer announced in a press release.

The 0.3% foam, marketed as Zoryve, applied once-daily, is indicated for patients aged 9 years and older with seborrheic dermatitis, and can be used anywhere on the body, including areas with hair, with no limits on duration of use, according to the company, Arcutis. A 0.3% cream formulation of roflumilast was previously approved by the FDA for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6 years and older.

Approval was based on data from the phase 3 STRATUM trial and an accompanying phase 2 study known as Trial 203. These studies included a total of 683 adults and youth aged 9 years and older with seborrheic dermatitis. Participants were randomized to roflumilast or a placebo.

At 8 weeks, 79.5 % of patients on roflumilast met the primary efficacy endpoint of Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) compared with 58.0% of patients on placebo (P < .001); the results were similar in the phase 2 Trial 203 (73.1% vs. 40.8%, respectively; P < .001). Overall, more than 50% of the patients on roflumilast achieved a clear score.

Patients in the roflumilast group also showed significant improvement in all secondary endpoints, including itching, scaling, and erythema, according to the company.

In the STRATUM study, 62.8% of roflumilast-treated patients and 40.6% of placebo patients achieved a 4-point or more reduction in itch based on the Worst Itch Numerical Rating Score (P =.0001), and 28% of roflumilast-treated patients reported significant itch improvement within the first 48 hours of use, compared with 13% of placebo patients (P = .0024).

Over a treatment period of up to 1 year, no treatment-related severe adverse events were reported in the phase 2 and 3 studies. The incidence of treatment emergent adverse events was similar between the treatment and placebo groups, and the most common adverse events (occurring in 1% of more of patients) across both studies were nasopharyngitis (1.5%), nausea (1.3%), and headache (1.1%).

Roflumilast foam is scheduled to be available by the end of January 2024, according to the company. The product is for topical use only, and contraindicated for individuals with severe liver impairment.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a foam formulation of roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitor, for the treatment of seborrheic dermatitis, the manufacturer announced in a press release.

The 0.3% foam, marketed as Zoryve, applied once-daily, is indicated for patients aged 9 years and older with seborrheic dermatitis, and can be used anywhere on the body, including areas with hair, with no limits on duration of use, according to the company, Arcutis. A 0.3% cream formulation of roflumilast was previously approved by the FDA for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6 years and older.

Approval was based on data from the phase 3 STRATUM trial and an accompanying phase 2 study known as Trial 203. These studies included a total of 683 adults and youth aged 9 years and older with seborrheic dermatitis. Participants were randomized to roflumilast or a placebo.

At 8 weeks, 79.5 % of patients on roflumilast met the primary efficacy endpoint of Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) compared with 58.0% of patients on placebo (P < .001); the results were similar in the phase 2 Trial 203 (73.1% vs. 40.8%, respectively; P < .001). Overall, more than 50% of the patients on roflumilast achieved a clear score.

Patients in the roflumilast group also showed significant improvement in all secondary endpoints, including itching, scaling, and erythema, according to the company.

In the STRATUM study, 62.8% of roflumilast-treated patients and 40.6% of placebo patients achieved a 4-point or more reduction in itch based on the Worst Itch Numerical Rating Score (P =.0001), and 28% of roflumilast-treated patients reported significant itch improvement within the first 48 hours of use, compared with 13% of placebo patients (P = .0024).

Over a treatment period of up to 1 year, no treatment-related severe adverse events were reported in the phase 2 and 3 studies. The incidence of treatment emergent adverse events was similar between the treatment and placebo groups, and the most common adverse events (occurring in 1% of more of patients) across both studies were nasopharyngitis (1.5%), nausea (1.3%), and headache (1.1%).

Roflumilast foam is scheduled to be available by the end of January 2024, according to the company. The product is for topical use only, and contraindicated for individuals with severe liver impairment.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a foam formulation of roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitor, for the treatment of seborrheic dermatitis, the manufacturer announced in a press release.

The 0.3% foam, marketed as Zoryve, applied once-daily, is indicated for patients aged 9 years and older with seborrheic dermatitis, and can be used anywhere on the body, including areas with hair, with no limits on duration of use, according to the company, Arcutis. A 0.3% cream formulation of roflumilast was previously approved by the FDA for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6 years and older.

Approval was based on data from the phase 3 STRATUM trial and an accompanying phase 2 study known as Trial 203. These studies included a total of 683 adults and youth aged 9 years and older with seborrheic dermatitis. Participants were randomized to roflumilast or a placebo.

At 8 weeks, 79.5 % of patients on roflumilast met the primary efficacy endpoint of Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) compared with 58.0% of patients on placebo (P < .001); the results were similar in the phase 2 Trial 203 (73.1% vs. 40.8%, respectively; P < .001). Overall, more than 50% of the patients on roflumilast achieved a clear score.

Patients in the roflumilast group also showed significant improvement in all secondary endpoints, including itching, scaling, and erythema, according to the company.

In the STRATUM study, 62.8% of roflumilast-treated patients and 40.6% of placebo patients achieved a 4-point or more reduction in itch based on the Worst Itch Numerical Rating Score (P =.0001), and 28% of roflumilast-treated patients reported significant itch improvement within the first 48 hours of use, compared with 13% of placebo patients (P = .0024).

Over a treatment period of up to 1 year, no treatment-related severe adverse events were reported in the phase 2 and 3 studies. The incidence of treatment emergent adverse events was similar between the treatment and placebo groups, and the most common adverse events (occurring in 1% of more of patients) across both studies were nasopharyngitis (1.5%), nausea (1.3%), and headache (1.1%).

Roflumilast foam is scheduled to be available by the end of January 2024, according to the company. The product is for topical use only, and contraindicated for individuals with severe liver impairment.