MDedge Rheumatology

Key clinical point: Female patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who initiated treatment with first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) experienced less reduction in disease activity scores and showed higher discontinuation rates than male patients.

Major finding: At 6 months, women were 17% less likely than men to achieve low disease activity according to Disease Activity Score-28 C-reactive protein measurements (adjusted relative risk 0.83; 95% CI 0.81-0.85), and the risk for TNFi treatment discontinuation at 2 years was nearly 60% higher in women vs in men (adjusted hazard ratio 1.57; 95% CI 1.49-1.66).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 18,599 patients with PsA who received their first TNFi, of whom 7679 and 17,842 women were analyzed for treatment response and retention rates, respectively.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding source. Several authors declared receiving honoraria, unrestricted grants, speaker’s fees, or consultancy fees from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Hellamand P et al. Sex differences in the effectiveness of first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis; results from the EuroSpA Research Collaboration Network. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023 (Nov 16). doi: 10.1002/art.42758

Key clinical point: Female patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who initiated treatment with first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) experienced less reduction in disease activity scores and showed higher discontinuation rates than male patients.

Major finding: At 6 months, women were 17% less likely than men to achieve low disease activity according to Disease Activity Score-28 C-reactive protein measurements (adjusted relative risk 0.83; 95% CI 0.81-0.85), and the risk for TNFi treatment discontinuation at 2 years was nearly 60% higher in women vs in men (adjusted hazard ratio 1.57; 95% CI 1.49-1.66).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 18,599 patients with PsA who received their first TNFi, of whom 7679 and 17,842 women were analyzed for treatment response and retention rates, respectively.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding source. Several authors declared receiving honoraria, unrestricted grants, speaker’s fees, or consultancy fees from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Hellamand P et al. Sex differences in the effectiveness of first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis; results from the EuroSpA Research Collaboration Network. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023 (Nov 16). doi: 10.1002/art.42758

Key clinical point: Female patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who initiated treatment with first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) experienced less reduction in disease activity scores and showed higher discontinuation rates than male patients.

Major finding: At 6 months, women were 17% less likely than men to achieve low disease activity according to Disease Activity Score-28 C-reactive protein measurements (adjusted relative risk 0.83; 95% CI 0.81-0.85), and the risk for TNFi treatment discontinuation at 2 years was nearly 60% higher in women vs in men (adjusted hazard ratio 1.57; 95% CI 1.49-1.66).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 18,599 patients with PsA who received their first TNFi, of whom 7679 and 17,842 women were analyzed for treatment response and retention rates, respectively.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding source. Several authors declared receiving honoraria, unrestricted grants, speaker’s fees, or consultancy fees from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Hellamand P et al. Sex differences in the effectiveness of first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis; results from the EuroSpA Research Collaboration Network. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023 (Nov 16). doi: 10.1002/art.42758

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a 16-week treatment with either a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or secukinumab improved both active and chronic ultrasound-confirmed enthesitis to a similar extent; however, a TNFi was more effective in reducing active entheseal lesions.

Major finding: The mean reduction in MAdrid Sonographic Enthesitis Index (MASEI) score that assesses both active and chronic entheseal disease was not significantly different with TNFi vs secukinumab treatment (3.42 vs 1.74; P = .097). However, TNFi was significantly more effective than secukinumab when only active entheseal lesions were considered (MASEIActive score 4.37 vs 2.26; P = .030).

Study details: Findings are from an open-label observational study including 80 patients with PsA who received either secukinumab (n = 24) or TNFi (n = 56), of whom 75 patients completed the treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the UK Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Alliance and other sources. The authors reported receiving honoraria from Novartis.

Source: Elliott A et al. Effects of TNF-α inhibition versus secukinumab on active ultrasound-confirmed enthesitis in psoriatic arthritis. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2023; 15:1759720X231179524. (Nov 16). doi: 10.1177/1759720X231179524

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a 16-week treatment with either a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or secukinumab improved both active and chronic ultrasound-confirmed enthesitis to a similar extent; however, a TNFi was more effective in reducing active entheseal lesions.

Major finding: The mean reduction in MAdrid Sonographic Enthesitis Index (MASEI) score that assesses both active and chronic entheseal disease was not significantly different with TNFi vs secukinumab treatment (3.42 vs 1.74; P = .097). However, TNFi was significantly more effective than secukinumab when only active entheseal lesions were considered (MASEIActive score 4.37 vs 2.26; P = .030).

Study details: Findings are from an open-label observational study including 80 patients with PsA who received either secukinumab (n = 24) or TNFi (n = 56), of whom 75 patients completed the treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the UK Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Alliance and other sources. The authors reported receiving honoraria from Novartis.

Source: Elliott A et al. Effects of TNF-α inhibition versus secukinumab on active ultrasound-confirmed enthesitis in psoriatic arthritis. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2023; 15:1759720X231179524. (Nov 16). doi: 10.1177/1759720X231179524

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a 16-week treatment with either a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or secukinumab improved both active and chronic ultrasound-confirmed enthesitis to a similar extent; however, a TNFi was more effective in reducing active entheseal lesions.

Major finding: The mean reduction in MAdrid Sonographic Enthesitis Index (MASEI) score that assesses both active and chronic entheseal disease was not significantly different with TNFi vs secukinumab treatment (3.42 vs 1.74; P = .097). However, TNFi was significantly more effective than secukinumab when only active entheseal lesions were considered (MASEIActive score 4.37 vs 2.26; P = .030).

Study details: Findings are from an open-label observational study including 80 patients with PsA who received either secukinumab (n = 24) or TNFi (n = 56), of whom 75 patients completed the treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the UK Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Alliance and other sources. The authors reported receiving honoraria from Novartis.

Source: Elliott A et al. Effects of TNF-α inhibition versus secukinumab on active ultrasound-confirmed enthesitis in psoriatic arthritis. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2023; 15:1759720X231179524. (Nov 16). doi: 10.1177/1759720X231179524

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who responded to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), such as adalimumab and etanercept, had higher serum drug levels (SDL), with non-trough SDL being able to differentiate responders from non-responders with substantial efficacy.

Major finding: At 3 months, patients with higher etanercept SDL (odds ratio [OR] 1.24; P = .018) or higher adalimumab SDL (OR 1.08; P = .047) were significantly more likely to be responders according to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology criteria. A non-trough etanercept SDL of 2.0 µg/mL and adalimumab SDL of 3.6 µg/mL could differentiate between responders and non-responders with ~50% specificity and >60% sensitivity.

Study details: This study included patients with PsA who initiated treatment with adalimumab (n = 104) or etanercept (n = 97).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and Versus Arthritis. Two authors declared receiving grant support, consulting fees, or travel fees from various sources, including the sponsors.

Source: Curry PDK et al. Non-trough serum drug levels of adalimumab and etanercept are associated with response in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Dec 09) doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead666

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who responded to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), such as adalimumab and etanercept, had higher serum drug levels (SDL), with non-trough SDL being able to differentiate responders from non-responders with substantial efficacy.

Major finding: At 3 months, patients with higher etanercept SDL (odds ratio [OR] 1.24; P = .018) or higher adalimumab SDL (OR 1.08; P = .047) were significantly more likely to be responders according to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology criteria. A non-trough etanercept SDL of 2.0 µg/mL and adalimumab SDL of 3.6 µg/mL could differentiate between responders and non-responders with ~50% specificity and >60% sensitivity.

Study details: This study included patients with PsA who initiated treatment with adalimumab (n = 104) or etanercept (n = 97).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and Versus Arthritis. Two authors declared receiving grant support, consulting fees, or travel fees from various sources, including the sponsors.

Source: Curry PDK et al. Non-trough serum drug levels of adalimumab and etanercept are associated with response in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Dec 09) doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead666

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who responded to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), such as adalimumab and etanercept, had higher serum drug levels (SDL), with non-trough SDL being able to differentiate responders from non-responders with substantial efficacy.

Major finding: At 3 months, patients with higher etanercept SDL (odds ratio [OR] 1.24; P = .018) or higher adalimumab SDL (OR 1.08; P = .047) were significantly more likely to be responders according to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology criteria. A non-trough etanercept SDL of 2.0 µg/mL and adalimumab SDL of 3.6 µg/mL could differentiate between responders and non-responders with ~50% specificity and >60% sensitivity.

Study details: This study included patients with PsA who initiated treatment with adalimumab (n = 104) or etanercept (n = 97).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and Versus Arthritis. Two authors declared receiving grant support, consulting fees, or travel fees from various sources, including the sponsors.

Source: Curry PDK et al. Non-trough serum drug levels of adalimumab and etanercept are associated with response in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Dec 09) doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead666

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had hyperuricemia (baseline serum uric acid level ≥ 360 µmol/L) presented with worsened clinical characteristics than those with normouricemia; however, secukinumab was equally effective in patients with and without hyperuricemia.

Major finding: Patients with hyperuricemia vs normouricemia presented with higher mean body mass index values (30.90 kg/m² vs 28.33 kg/m²), more frequent hypertension (43.8% vs 31.3%), diabetes mellitus (10.3% vs 8.6%), and dactylitis (34.5% vs 25.9%). More than 40% of patients achieved ≥ 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology scores with secukinumab, irrespective of the presence of hyperuricemia.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the pooled data from five phase 3 clinical trials included 2504 patients with active PsA who received secukinumab, 32.8% of whom had hyperuricemia.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Four authors declared being employees, shareholders, or advisory board members of or receiving consulting fees from Novartis.

Source: Felten R et al. Impact of hyperuricaemia on patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with secukinumab in the FUTURE 2-5 and MAXIMISE studies. RMD Open. 2023;9(4):e003428. (Nov 9) doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003428

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had hyperuricemia (baseline serum uric acid level ≥ 360 µmol/L) presented with worsened clinical characteristics than those with normouricemia; however, secukinumab was equally effective in patients with and without hyperuricemia.

Major finding: Patients with hyperuricemia vs normouricemia presented with higher mean body mass index values (30.90 kg/m² vs 28.33 kg/m²), more frequent hypertension (43.8% vs 31.3%), diabetes mellitus (10.3% vs 8.6%), and dactylitis (34.5% vs 25.9%). More than 40% of patients achieved ≥ 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology scores with secukinumab, irrespective of the presence of hyperuricemia.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the pooled data from five phase 3 clinical trials included 2504 patients with active PsA who received secukinumab, 32.8% of whom had hyperuricemia.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Four authors declared being employees, shareholders, or advisory board members of or receiving consulting fees from Novartis.

Source: Felten R et al. Impact of hyperuricaemia on patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with secukinumab in the FUTURE 2-5 and MAXIMISE studies. RMD Open. 2023;9(4):e003428. (Nov 9) doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003428

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had hyperuricemia (baseline serum uric acid level ≥ 360 µmol/L) presented with worsened clinical characteristics than those with normouricemia; however, secukinumab was equally effective in patients with and without hyperuricemia.

Major finding: Patients with hyperuricemia vs normouricemia presented with higher mean body mass index values (30.90 kg/m² vs 28.33 kg/m²), more frequent hypertension (43.8% vs 31.3%), diabetes mellitus (10.3% vs 8.6%), and dactylitis (34.5% vs 25.9%). More than 40% of patients achieved ≥ 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology scores with secukinumab, irrespective of the presence of hyperuricemia.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the pooled data from five phase 3 clinical trials included 2504 patients with active PsA who received secukinumab, 32.8% of whom had hyperuricemia.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Four authors declared being employees, shareholders, or advisory board members of or receiving consulting fees from Novartis.

Source: Felten R et al. Impact of hyperuricaemia on patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with secukinumab in the FUTURE 2-5 and MAXIMISE studies. RMD Open. 2023;9(4):e003428. (Nov 9) doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003428

Key clinical point: In a real-world setting, secukinumab demonstrated substantial efficacy in improving disease activity scores, enthesitis, and dactylitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: The proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity according to the Disease Activity Score-28 C-reactive protein measurements increased significantly from 25% at baseline to 66% after 6 months (P < .001), with the improvements maintained for up to 24 months (75%). After 6 months of secukinumab treatment, complete resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis was reported by the majority of patients (82% and 67%, respectively) along with an improvement in pain scores.

Study details: Findings are from an observational retrospective study including 178 patients with PsA who received secukinumab in the first-, second-, or third- or higher line setting.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Novartis Farmacéutica, S.A. Two authors declared financial and non-financial ties with various sources including Novartis. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Alegre-Sancho JJ et al. Real-world effectiveness and persistence of secukinumab in the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1294247 (Nov 20). doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1294247

Key clinical point: In a real-world setting, secukinumab demonstrated substantial efficacy in improving disease activity scores, enthesitis, and dactylitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: The proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity according to the Disease Activity Score-28 C-reactive protein measurements increased significantly from 25% at baseline to 66% after 6 months (P < .001), with the improvements maintained for up to 24 months (75%). After 6 months of secukinumab treatment, complete resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis was reported by the majority of patients (82% and 67%, respectively) along with an improvement in pain scores.

Study details: Findings are from an observational retrospective study including 178 patients with PsA who received secukinumab in the first-, second-, or third- or higher line setting.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Novartis Farmacéutica, S.A. Two authors declared financial and non-financial ties with various sources including Novartis. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Alegre-Sancho JJ et al. Real-world effectiveness and persistence of secukinumab in the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1294247 (Nov 20). doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1294247

Key clinical point: In a real-world setting, secukinumab demonstrated substantial efficacy in improving disease activity scores, enthesitis, and dactylitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: The proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity according to the Disease Activity Score-28 C-reactive protein measurements increased significantly from 25% at baseline to 66% after 6 months (P < .001), with the improvements maintained for up to 24 months (75%). After 6 months of secukinumab treatment, complete resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis was reported by the majority of patients (82% and 67%, respectively) along with an improvement in pain scores.

Study details: Findings are from an observational retrospective study including 178 patients with PsA who received secukinumab in the first-, second-, or third- or higher line setting.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Novartis Farmacéutica, S.A. Two authors declared financial and non-financial ties with various sources including Novartis. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Alegre-Sancho JJ et al. Real-world effectiveness and persistence of secukinumab in the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1294247 (Nov 20). doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1294247

Key clinical point: Female patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were less likely to achieve efficacy endpoints with treatment than male patients with PsA, with the differences being most pronounced when biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy was administered.

Major finding: The odds of achieving ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score was higher in men vs women (odds ratio [OR] 1.49; 95% CI 1.29-1.71), with the difference being more pronounced in case of all bDMARD, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.11-2.18), interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.38-2.11), IL-23 inhibitors (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.20-1.78), and IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitors (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.39-5.09).

Study details: This meta-analysis of 54 randomized controlled trials included 22,621 patients with PsA who received targeted advanced therapies, bDMARD, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Canadian Rheumatology Association. Four authors declared financial or non-financial ties with various sources. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Eder L et al. Sex-related differences in patient characteristics, and efficacy and safety of advanced therapies in randomized clinical trials in psoriatic arthritis: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023;5(12):E716-E727 (Nov 13). doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00264-3

Key clinical point: Female patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were less likely to achieve efficacy endpoints with treatment than male patients with PsA, with the differences being most pronounced when biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy was administered.

Major finding: The odds of achieving ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score was higher in men vs women (odds ratio [OR] 1.49; 95% CI 1.29-1.71), with the difference being more pronounced in case of all bDMARD, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.11-2.18), interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.38-2.11), IL-23 inhibitors (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.20-1.78), and IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitors (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.39-5.09).

Study details: This meta-analysis of 54 randomized controlled trials included 22,621 patients with PsA who received targeted advanced therapies, bDMARD, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Canadian Rheumatology Association. Four authors declared financial or non-financial ties with various sources. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Eder L et al. Sex-related differences in patient characteristics, and efficacy and safety of advanced therapies in randomized clinical trials in psoriatic arthritis: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023;5(12):E716-E727 (Nov 13). doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00264-3

Key clinical point: Female patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were less likely to achieve efficacy endpoints with treatment than male patients with PsA, with the differences being most pronounced when biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy was administered.

Major finding: The odds of achieving ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score was higher in men vs women (odds ratio [OR] 1.49; 95% CI 1.29-1.71), with the difference being more pronounced in case of all bDMARD, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.11-2.18), interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.38-2.11), IL-23 inhibitors (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.20-1.78), and IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitors (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.39-5.09).

Study details: This meta-analysis of 54 randomized controlled trials included 22,621 patients with PsA who received targeted advanced therapies, bDMARD, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Canadian Rheumatology Association. Four authors declared financial or non-financial ties with various sources. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Eder L et al. Sex-related differences in patient characteristics, and efficacy and safety of advanced therapies in randomized clinical trials in psoriatic arthritis: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023;5(12):E716-E727 (Nov 13). doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00264-3

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.

Patients with psoriatic disease have significantly higher risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality than does the general population, yet research consistently paints what dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, calls an “abysmal” picture: Only a minority of patients with psoriatic disease know about their increased risks, only a minority of dermatologists and rheumatologists screen for cardiovascular risk factors like lipid levels and blood pressure, and only a minority of patients diagnosed with hyperlipidemia are adequately treated with statin therapy.

In the literature and at medical meetings, Dr. Gelfand and others who have studied cardiovascular disease (CVD) comorbidity and physician practices have been urging dermatologists and rheumatologists to play a more consistent and active role in primary cardiovascular prevention for patients with psoriatic disease, who are up to 50% more likely than patients without it to develop CVD and who tend to have atherosclerosis at earlier ages.

According to the 2019 joint American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)–National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) guidelines for managing psoriasis “with awareness and attention to comorbidities,” this means not only ensuring that all patients with psoriasis receive standard CV risk assessment (screening for hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia), but also recognizing that patients who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy — or who have psoriasis involving > 10% of body surface area — may benefit from earlier and more frequent screening.

CV risk and premature mortality rises with the severity of skin disease, and patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are believed to have risk levels similar to patients with moderate-severe psoriasis, cardiologist Michael S. Garshick, MD, director of the cardio-rheumatology program at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

NYU Langone

Dr. Barbieri

In many cases, dermatologists and rheumatologists may be the primary providers for patients with psoriatic disease. So, “the question is, how can the dermatologist or rheumatologist use their interactions as a touchpoint to improve the patient’s well-being?” Dr. Barbieri said in an interview.

For the dermatologist, educating patients about the higher CVD risk fits well into conversations about “how there may be inflammation inside the body as well as in the skin,” he said. “Talk about cardiovascular risk just as you talk about PsA risk.” Both specialists, he added, can incorporate blood pressure readings and look for opportunities to measure lipid levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). These labs can easily be integrated into a biologic work-up.

“The hard part — and this needs to be individualized — is how do you want to handle [abnormal readings]? Do you want to take on a lot of the ownership and calculate [10-year CVD] risk scores and then counsel patients accordingly?” Dr. Barbieri said. “Or do you want to try to refer, and encourage them to work with their PCP? There a high-touch version and a low-touch version of how you can turn screening into action, into a care plan.”


 

Beyond traditional risk elevation, the primary care hand-off

Rheumatologists “in general may be more apt to screen for cardiovascular disease” as a result of their internal medicine residency training, and “we’re generally more comfortable prescribing ... if we need to,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic.

Penn Medicine

Referral to a preventive cardiologist for management of abnormal lab results or ongoing monitoring and prevention is ideal, but when hand-offs to primary care physicians are made — the more common scenario — education is important. “A common problem is that there is underrecognition of the cardiovascular risk being elevated in our patients,” she said, above and beyond risk posed by traditional risk factors such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, all of which have been shown to occur more frequently in patients with psoriatic disease than in the general population.

Morsa Images/DigitalVision/Getty Images

‘Patients trust us’

Dr. Gelfand has been at the forefront of research on psoriasis and heart disease. A study he coauthored in 2006, for instance, documented an independent risk of MI, with adjusted relative risks of 1.29 and 3.10 for a 30-year-old patient with mild or severe disease, respectively, and higher risks for a 60-year-old. In 2010, he and coinvestigators found that severe psoriasis was an independent risk factor for CV mortality (HR, 1.57) after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Today, along with Dr. Barbieri, Dr. Ogdie, and others, he is studying the feasibility and efficacy of a proposed national, “centralized care coordinator” model of care whereby dermatologists and rheumatologists would educate the patient, order lipid and HbA1c measurements as medically appropriate, and then refer patients as needed to a care coordinator. The care coordinator would calculate a 10-year CVD risk score and counsel the patient on possible next steps.

In a pilot study of 85 patients at four sites, 92% of patients followed through on their physician’s recommendations to have labs drawn, and 86% indicated the model was acceptable and feasible. A total of 27% of patients had “newly identified, previously undiagnosed, elevated cardiovascular disease risk,” and exploratory effectiveness results indicated a successful reduction in predicted CVD risk in patients who started statins, Dr. Gelfand reported at the NPF meeting.

With funding from the NPF, a larger, single-arm, pragmatic “CP3” trial (NCT05908240) is enrolling 525 patients with psoriasis at 10-20 academic and nonacademic dermatology sites across the United States to further test the model. The primary endpoint will be the change in LDL cholesterol measured at 6 months among people with a 10-year risk ≥5%. Secondary endpoints will cover improvement in disease severity and quality of life, behavior modification, patient experience, and other issues.

“We have only 10-15 minutes [with patients] ... a care coordinator who is empathetic and understanding and [informed] could make a big difference,” Dr. Gelfand said at the NPF meeting. If findings are positive, the model would be tested in rheumatology sites as well. The hope, he said, is that the NPF would be able to fund an in-house care coordinator(s) for the long-term.

Notably, a patient survey conducted as part of exploratory research leading up to the care coordinator project showed that patients trust their dermatologist or rheumatologist for CVD education and screening. Among 160 patients with psoriasis and 162 patients with PsA, 76% and 90% agreed that “I would like it if my dermatologist/rheumatologist educated me about my risk of heart disease,” and 60% and 75%, respectively, agree that “it would be convenient for me to have my cholesterol checked by my dermatologist/rheumatologist.”

“Patients trust us,” Dr. Gelfand said at the NPF meeting. “And the pilot study shows us that patients are motivated.”
 

Taking an individualized, holistic, longitudinal approach

“Sometimes you do have to triage bit,” Dr. Gelfand said in an interview. “For a young person with normal body weight who doesn’t smoke and has mild psoriasis, one could just educate and advise that they see their primary care physician” for monitoring.

“But for the same patient who is obese, maybe smokes, and doesn’t have a primary care physician, I’d order labs,” he said. “You don’t want a patient walking out the door with an [undiagnosed] LDL of 160 or hypertension.”

Age is also an important consideration, as excess CVD risk associated with autoimmune diseases like psoriasis rises with age, Dr. Gelfand said during a seminar on psoriasis and PsA held at NYU Langone in December. For a young person, typically, “I need to focus on education and lifestyle … setting them on a healthy lifestyle trajectory,” he said. “Once they get to 40, from 40 to 75 or so, that’s a sweet spot for medical intervention to lower cardiovascular risk.”

Even at older ages, however, lipid management is not the be-all and end-all, he said in the interview. “We have to be holistic.”

One advantage of having highly successful therapies for psoriasis, and to a lesser extent PsA, is the time that becomes available during follow-up visits — once disease is under control — to “focus on other things,” he said. Waiting until disease is under control to discuss diet, exercise, or smoking, for instance, makes sense anyway, he said. “You don’t want to overwhelm patients with too much to do at once.”

Indeed, said dermatologist Robert E. Kalb, MD, of the Buffalo Medical Group in Buffalo, NY, “patients have an open mind [about discussing cardiovascular disease risk], but it is not high on their radar. Most of them just want to get their skin clear.” (Dr. Kalb participated in the care coordinator pilot study, and said in an interview that since its completion, he has been more routinely ordering relevant labs.)

Rheumatologists are less fortunate with highly successful therapies, but “over the continuum of care, we do have time in office visits” to discuss issues like smoking, exercise, and lifestyle, Dr. Ogdie said. “I think of each of those pieces as part of our job.”

In the future, as researchers learn more about the impact of psoriasis and PsA treatments on CVD risk, it may be possible to tailor treatments or to prescribe treatments knowing that the therapies could reduce risk. Observational and epidemiologic data suggest that tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor therapy over 3 years reduces the risk of MI, and that patients whose psoriasis is treated have reduced aortic inflammation, improved myocardial strain, and reduced coronary plaque burden, Dr. Garshick said at the NPF meeting.

“But when we look at the randomized controlled trials, they’re actually inconclusive that targeting inflammation in psoriatic disease reduces surrogates of cardiovascular disease,” he said. Dr. Garshick’s own research focuses on platelet and endothelial biology in psoriasis.

Dr. Barbieri reported he had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Garshick reported consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kiniksa, Horizon Therapeutics, and Agepha. Dr. Ogdie reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies.

Patients with psoriatic disease have significantly higher risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality than does the general population, yet research consistently paints what dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, calls an “abysmal” picture: Only a minority of patients with psoriatic disease know about their increased risks, only a minority of dermatologists and rheumatologists screen for cardiovascular risk factors like lipid levels and blood pressure, and only a minority of patients diagnosed with hyperlipidemia are adequately treated with statin therapy.

In the literature and at medical meetings, Dr. Gelfand and others who have studied cardiovascular disease (CVD) comorbidity and physician practices have been urging dermatologists and rheumatologists to play a more consistent and active role in primary cardiovascular prevention for patients with psoriatic disease, who are up to 50% more likely than patients without it to develop CVD and who tend to have atherosclerosis at earlier ages.

According to the 2019 joint American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)–National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) guidelines for managing psoriasis “with awareness and attention to comorbidities,” this means not only ensuring that all patients with psoriasis receive standard CV risk assessment (screening for hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia), but also recognizing that patients who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy — or who have psoriasis involving > 10% of body surface area — may benefit from earlier and more frequent screening.

CV risk and premature mortality rises with the severity of skin disease, and patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are believed to have risk levels similar to patients with moderate-severe psoriasis, cardiologist Michael S. Garshick, MD, director of the cardio-rheumatology program at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

NYU Langone

Dr. Barbieri

In many cases, dermatologists and rheumatologists may be the primary providers for patients with psoriatic disease. So, “the question is, how can the dermatologist or rheumatologist use their interactions as a touchpoint to improve the patient’s well-being?” Dr. Barbieri said in an interview.

For the dermatologist, educating patients about the higher CVD risk fits well into conversations about “how there may be inflammation inside the body as well as in the skin,” he said. “Talk about cardiovascular risk just as you talk about PsA risk.” Both specialists, he added, can incorporate blood pressure readings and look for opportunities to measure lipid levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). These labs can easily be integrated into a biologic work-up.

“The hard part — and this needs to be individualized — is how do you want to handle [abnormal readings]? Do you want to take on a lot of the ownership and calculate [10-year CVD] risk scores and then counsel patients accordingly?” Dr. Barbieri said. “Or do you want to try to refer, and encourage them to work with their PCP? There a high-touch version and a low-touch version of how you can turn screening into action, into a care plan.”


 

Beyond traditional risk elevation, the primary care hand-off

Rheumatologists “in general may be more apt to screen for cardiovascular disease” as a result of their internal medicine residency training, and “we’re generally more comfortable prescribing ... if we need to,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic.

Penn Medicine

Referral to a preventive cardiologist for management of abnormal lab results or ongoing monitoring and prevention is ideal, but when hand-offs to primary care physicians are made — the more common scenario — education is important. “A common problem is that there is underrecognition of the cardiovascular risk being elevated in our patients,” she said, above and beyond risk posed by traditional risk factors such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, all of which have been shown to occur more frequently in patients with psoriatic disease than in the general population.

Morsa Images/DigitalVision/Getty Images

‘Patients trust us’

Dr. Gelfand has been at the forefront of research on psoriasis and heart disease. A study he coauthored in 2006, for instance, documented an independent risk of MI, with adjusted relative risks of 1.29 and 3.10 for a 30-year-old patient with mild or severe disease, respectively, and higher risks for a 60-year-old. In 2010, he and coinvestigators found that severe psoriasis was an independent risk factor for CV mortality (HR, 1.57) after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Today, along with Dr. Barbieri, Dr. Ogdie, and others, he is studying the feasibility and efficacy of a proposed national, “centralized care coordinator” model of care whereby dermatologists and rheumatologists would educate the patient, order lipid and HbA1c measurements as medically appropriate, and then refer patients as needed to a care coordinator. The care coordinator would calculate a 10-year CVD risk score and counsel the patient on possible next steps.

In a pilot study of 85 patients at four sites, 92% of patients followed through on their physician’s recommendations to have labs drawn, and 86% indicated the model was acceptable and feasible. A total of 27% of patients had “newly identified, previously undiagnosed, elevated cardiovascular disease risk,” and exploratory effectiveness results indicated a successful reduction in predicted CVD risk in patients who started statins, Dr. Gelfand reported at the NPF meeting.

With funding from the NPF, a larger, single-arm, pragmatic “CP3” trial (NCT05908240) is enrolling 525 patients with psoriasis at 10-20 academic and nonacademic dermatology sites across the United States to further test the model. The primary endpoint will be the change in LDL cholesterol measured at 6 months among people with a 10-year risk ≥5%. Secondary endpoints will cover improvement in disease severity and quality of life, behavior modification, patient experience, and other issues.

“We have only 10-15 minutes [with patients] ... a care coordinator who is empathetic and understanding and [informed] could make a big difference,” Dr. Gelfand said at the NPF meeting. If findings are positive, the model would be tested in rheumatology sites as well. The hope, he said, is that the NPF would be able to fund an in-house care coordinator(s) for the long-term.

Notably, a patient survey conducted as part of exploratory research leading up to the care coordinator project showed that patients trust their dermatologist or rheumatologist for CVD education and screening. Among 160 patients with psoriasis and 162 patients with PsA, 76% and 90% agreed that “I would like it if my dermatologist/rheumatologist educated me about my risk of heart disease,” and 60% and 75%, respectively, agree that “it would be convenient for me to have my cholesterol checked by my dermatologist/rheumatologist.”

“Patients trust us,” Dr. Gelfand said at the NPF meeting. “And the pilot study shows us that patients are motivated.”
 

Taking an individualized, holistic, longitudinal approach

“Sometimes you do have to triage bit,” Dr. Gelfand said in an interview. “For a young person with normal body weight who doesn’t smoke and has mild psoriasis, one could just educate and advise that they see their primary care physician” for monitoring.

“But for the same patient who is obese, maybe smokes, and doesn’t have a primary care physician, I’d order labs,” he said. “You don’t want a patient walking out the door with an [undiagnosed] LDL of 160 or hypertension.”

Age is also an important consideration, as excess CVD risk associated with autoimmune diseases like psoriasis rises with age, Dr. Gelfand said during a seminar on psoriasis and PsA held at NYU Langone in December. For a young person, typically, “I need to focus on education and lifestyle … setting them on a healthy lifestyle trajectory,” he said. “Once they get to 40, from 40 to 75 or so, that’s a sweet spot for medical intervention to lower cardiovascular risk.”

Even at older ages, however, lipid management is not the be-all and end-all, he said in the interview. “We have to be holistic.”

One advantage of having highly successful therapies for psoriasis, and to a lesser extent PsA, is the time that becomes available during follow-up visits — once disease is under control — to “focus on other things,” he said. Waiting until disease is under control to discuss diet, exercise, or smoking, for instance, makes sense anyway, he said. “You don’t want to overwhelm patients with too much to do at once.”

Indeed, said dermatologist Robert E. Kalb, MD, of the Buffalo Medical Group in Buffalo, NY, “patients have an open mind [about discussing cardiovascular disease risk], but it is not high on their radar. Most of them just want to get their skin clear.” (Dr. Kalb participated in the care coordinator pilot study, and said in an interview that since its completion, he has been more routinely ordering relevant labs.)

Rheumatologists are less fortunate with highly successful therapies, but “over the continuum of care, we do have time in office visits” to discuss issues like smoking, exercise, and lifestyle, Dr. Ogdie said. “I think of each of those pieces as part of our job.”

In the future, as researchers learn more about the impact of psoriasis and PsA treatments on CVD risk, it may be possible to tailor treatments or to prescribe treatments knowing that the therapies could reduce risk. Observational and epidemiologic data suggest that tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor therapy over 3 years reduces the risk of MI, and that patients whose psoriasis is treated have reduced aortic inflammation, improved myocardial strain, and reduced coronary plaque burden, Dr. Garshick said at the NPF meeting.

“But when we look at the randomized controlled trials, they’re actually inconclusive that targeting inflammation in psoriatic disease reduces surrogates of cardiovascular disease,” he said. Dr. Garshick’s own research focuses on platelet and endothelial biology in psoriasis.

Dr. Barbieri reported he had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Garshick reported consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kiniksa, Horizon Therapeutics, and Agepha. Dr. Ogdie reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies.

Patients with psoriatic disease have significantly higher risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality than does the general population, yet research consistently paints what dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, calls an “abysmal” picture: Only a minority of patients with psoriatic disease know about their increased risks, only a minority of dermatologists and rheumatologists screen for cardiovascular risk factors like lipid levels and blood pressure, and only a minority of patients diagnosed with hyperlipidemia are adequately treated with statin therapy.

In the literature and at medical meetings, Dr. Gelfand and others who have studied cardiovascular disease (CVD) comorbidity and physician practices have been urging dermatologists and rheumatologists to play a more consistent and active role in primary cardiovascular prevention for patients with psoriatic disease, who are up to 50% more likely than patients without it to develop CVD and who tend to have atherosclerosis at earlier ages.

According to the 2019 joint American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)–National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) guidelines for managing psoriasis “with awareness and attention to comorbidities,” this means not only ensuring that all patients with psoriasis receive standard CV risk assessment (screening for hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia), but also recognizing that patients who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy — or who have psoriasis involving > 10% of body surface area — may benefit from earlier and more frequent screening.

CV risk and premature mortality rises with the severity of skin disease, and patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are believed to have risk levels similar to patients with moderate-severe psoriasis, cardiologist Michael S. Garshick, MD, director of the cardio-rheumatology program at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

NYU Langone

Dr. Barbieri

In many cases, dermatologists and rheumatologists may be the primary providers for patients with psoriatic disease. So, “the question is, how can the dermatologist or rheumatologist use their interactions as a touchpoint to improve the patient’s well-being?” Dr. Barbieri said in an interview.

For the dermatologist, educating patients about the higher CVD risk fits well into conversations about “how there may be inflammation inside the body as well as in the skin,” he said. “Talk about cardiovascular risk just as you talk about PsA risk.” Both specialists, he added, can incorporate blood pressure readings and look for opportunities to measure lipid levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). These labs can easily be integrated into a biologic work-up.

“The hard part — and this needs to be individualized — is how do you want to handle [abnormal readings]? Do you want to take on a lot of the ownership and calculate [10-year CVD] risk scores and then counsel patients accordingly?” Dr. Barbieri said. “Or do you want to try to refer, and encourage them to work with their PCP? There a high-touch version and a low-touch version of how you can turn screening into action, into a care plan.”


 

Beyond traditional risk elevation, the primary care hand-off

Rheumatologists “in general may be more apt to screen for cardiovascular disease” as a result of their internal medicine residency training, and “we’re generally more comfortable prescribing ... if we need to,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic.

Penn Medicine

Referral to a preventive cardiologist for management of abnormal lab results or ongoing monitoring and prevention is ideal, but when hand-offs to primary care physicians are made — the more common scenario — education is important. “A common problem is that there is underrecognition of the cardiovascular risk being elevated in our patients,” she said, above and beyond risk posed by traditional risk factors such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, all of which have been shown to occur more frequently in patients with psoriatic disease than in the general population.

Morsa Images/DigitalVision/Getty Images

‘Patients trust us’

Dr. Gelfand has been at the forefront of research on psoriasis and heart disease. A study he coauthored in 2006, for instance, documented an independent risk of MI, with adjusted relative risks of 1.29 and 3.10 for a 30-year-old patient with mild or severe disease, respectively, and higher risks for a 60-year-old. In 2010, he and coinvestigators found that severe psoriasis was an independent risk factor for CV mortality (HR, 1.57) after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Today, along with Dr. Barbieri, Dr. Ogdie, and others, he is studying the feasibility and efficacy of a proposed national, “centralized care coordinator” model of care whereby dermatologists and rheumatologists would educate the patient, order lipid and HbA1c measurements as medically appropriate, and then refer patients as needed to a care coordinator. The care coordinator would calculate a 10-year CVD risk score and counsel the patient on possible next steps.

In a pilot study of 85 patients at four sites, 92% of patients followed through on their physician’s recommendations to have labs drawn, and 86% indicated the model was acceptable and feasible. A total of 27% of patients had “newly identified, previously undiagnosed, elevated cardiovascular disease risk,” and exploratory effectiveness results indicated a successful reduction in predicted CVD risk in patients who started statins, Dr. Gelfand reported at the NPF meeting.

With funding from the NPF, a larger, single-arm, pragmatic “CP3” trial (NCT05908240) is enrolling 525 patients with psoriasis at 10-20 academic and nonacademic dermatology sites across the United States to further test the model. The primary endpoint will be the change in LDL cholesterol measured at 6 months among people with a 10-year risk ≥5%. Secondary endpoints will cover improvement in disease severity and quality of life, behavior modification, patient experience, and other issues.

“We have only 10-15 minutes [with patients] ... a care coordinator who is empathetic and understanding and [informed] could make a big difference,” Dr. Gelfand said at the NPF meeting. If findings are positive, the model would be tested in rheumatology sites as well. The hope, he said, is that the NPF would be able to fund an in-house care coordinator(s) for the long-term.

Notably, a patient survey conducted as part of exploratory research leading up to the care coordinator project showed that patients trust their dermatologist or rheumatologist for CVD education and screening. Among 160 patients with psoriasis and 162 patients with PsA, 76% and 90% agreed that “I would like it if my dermatologist/rheumatologist educated me about my risk of heart disease,” and 60% and 75%, respectively, agree that “it would be convenient for me to have my cholesterol checked by my dermatologist/rheumatologist.”

“Patients trust us,” Dr. Gelfand said at the NPF meeting. “And the pilot study shows us that patients are motivated.”
 

Taking an individualized, holistic, longitudinal approach

“Sometimes you do have to triage bit,” Dr. Gelfand said in an interview. “For a young person with normal body weight who doesn’t smoke and has mild psoriasis, one could just educate and advise that they see their primary care physician” for monitoring.

“But for the same patient who is obese, maybe smokes, and doesn’t have a primary care physician, I’d order labs,” he said. “You don’t want a patient walking out the door with an [undiagnosed] LDL of 160 or hypertension.”

Age is also an important consideration, as excess CVD risk associated with autoimmune diseases like psoriasis rises with age, Dr. Gelfand said during a seminar on psoriasis and PsA held at NYU Langone in December. For a young person, typically, “I need to focus on education and lifestyle … setting them on a healthy lifestyle trajectory,” he said. “Once they get to 40, from 40 to 75 or so, that’s a sweet spot for medical intervention to lower cardiovascular risk.”

Even at older ages, however, lipid management is not the be-all and end-all, he said in the interview. “We have to be holistic.”

One advantage of having highly successful therapies for psoriasis, and to a lesser extent PsA, is the time that becomes available during follow-up visits — once disease is under control — to “focus on other things,” he said. Waiting until disease is under control to discuss diet, exercise, or smoking, for instance, makes sense anyway, he said. “You don’t want to overwhelm patients with too much to do at once.”

Indeed, said dermatologist Robert E. Kalb, MD, of the Buffalo Medical Group in Buffalo, NY, “patients have an open mind [about discussing cardiovascular disease risk], but it is not high on their radar. Most of them just want to get their skin clear.” (Dr. Kalb participated in the care coordinator pilot study, and said in an interview that since its completion, he has been more routinely ordering relevant labs.)

Rheumatologists are less fortunate with highly successful therapies, but “over the continuum of care, we do have time in office visits” to discuss issues like smoking, exercise, and lifestyle, Dr. Ogdie said. “I think of each of those pieces as part of our job.”

In the future, as researchers learn more about the impact of psoriasis and PsA treatments on CVD risk, it may be possible to tailor treatments or to prescribe treatments knowing that the therapies could reduce risk. Observational and epidemiologic data suggest that tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor therapy over 3 years reduces the risk of MI, and that patients whose psoriasis is treated have reduced aortic inflammation, improved myocardial strain, and reduced coronary plaque burden, Dr. Garshick said at the NPF meeting.

“But when we look at the randomized controlled trials, they’re actually inconclusive that targeting inflammation in psoriatic disease reduces surrogates of cardiovascular disease,” he said. Dr. Garshick’s own research focuses on platelet and endothelial biology in psoriasis.

Dr. Barbieri reported he had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Garshick reported consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kiniksa, Horizon Therapeutics, and Agepha. Dr. Ogdie reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Battles Ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Patients Shopping?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Battles Ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Patients Shopping?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Battles Ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Patients Shopping?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.