MDedge Rheumatology

A growing number of long COVID patients, denied disability benefits despite being unable to work, are turning to the courts for legal relief.

At least 30 lawsuits have been filed seeking legal resolution of disability insurance claims, according to searches of court records. In addition, the Social Security Administration said it has received about 52,000 disability claims tied to SARS-CoV-2 infections, which represents 1% of all applications.

But legal experts say those cases may not reflect the total number of cases that have gone to court. They note many claims are initially dismissed and are not appealed by claimants.

“With this system, they deny two-thirds of initial applications, then people who appeal get denied almost 90% of the time, and then they can appeal before a judge,” said Kevin LaPorte, a Social Security disability attorney at LaPorte Law Firm in Oakland, Calif. “What happens next doesn’t have a lot of precedent because long COVID is a mass disabling event, and we haven’t seen that many of these cases get all the way through the legal system yet.”

As a result, the exact number of long COVID disability claims and the number of these cases going to court isn’t clear, he said.

“It can take a year or more for cases to get to court, and even longer to reach resolution,” Mr. LaPorte added. “I suspect the few cases we’ve heard about at this point are going to be the tip of the iceberg.”

The process is convoluted and can drag on for months with multiple denials and appeals along the way. Many disabled workers find their only recourse is to take insurers to court.

Long COVID patients typically apply for disability benefits through private insurance or Social Security. But the process can drag on for months, so many find their only recourse is to take insurers to court, according to legal experts.

But even in the courts, many encounter delays and hurdles to resolution.

In one of the first federal lawsuits involving long COVID disability benefits, William Abrams, a trial and appellate attorney and active marathon runner, sued Unum Life Insurance seeking long-term disability income. Symptoms included extreme fatigue, brain fog, decreased attention and concentration, and nearly daily fevers, causing him to stop working in April 2020.

His diagnosis wasn’t definitive. Three doctors said he had long COVID, and four said he had chronic fatigue syndrome. Unum cited this inconsistency as a rationale for rejecting his claim. But the court sided with Mr. Abrams, granting him disability income. The court concluded: “Unum may be correct that [the plaintiff] has not been correctly diagnosed. But that does not mean he is not sick. If [the plaintiff’s] complaints, and [the doctor’s] assessments, are to be believed, [the plaintiff] cannot focus for more than a few minutes at a time, making it impossible for [the plaintiff] to perform the varied and complex tasks his job requires.”

Unum said in an emailed statement that the company doesn’t comment on specific claims as a matter of policy, adding that its total payouts for disability claims from March 2020 to February 2022 were 35% higher than prepandemic levels. “In general, disability and leave claims connected to COVID-19 have been primarily short-term events with the majority of claimants recovering prior to completing the normal qualification period for long-term disability insurance,” Unum said.

Mr. Abrams prevailed in part because he had detailed documentation of the numerous impairments that eventually required him to stop work, said Michelle Roberts of Roberts Disability Law in Oakland, Calif.

He submitted videos of himself taking his temperature to prove he had almost daily fevers, according to court records. He underwent neuropsychological testing, which found learning deficiencies and memory deficits.

Mr. Abrams also submitted statements from a colleague who worked with him on a complex technology patent case involving radiofrequency identification. Before he got COVID, Mr. Abrams “had the analytical ability, legal acumen, and mental energy to attack that learning curve and get up to speed very rapidly,” according to court records.

“The court focused on credulity.” Ms. Roberts said. “There was all this work to be done to show this person was high functioning and ran marathons and worked in an intense, high-pressure occupation but then couldn’t do anything after long COVID.”

Documentation was also crucial in another early federal long COVID disability lawsuit that was filed in 2022 on behalf of Wendy Haut, an educational software sales representative in California who turned to the courts seeking disability income through her company’s employee benefits plan.

Several of Ms. Haut’s doctors documented a detailed list of long COVID symptoms, including “profound fatigue and extreme cognitive difficulties,” that they said prevented her from working as a sales representative or doing any other type of job. A settlement agreement in June 2022 required Reliance Standard Life Insurance to pay Ms. Haut long-term disability benefits, including previously unpaid benefits, according to a report by the advocacy group Pandemic Patients.

Representatives of Reliance Standard didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The growing number of workers being sidelined by long COVID makes more claims and more court cases likely. Right now, an estimated 16 million working-age Americans aged 18-65 years have long COVID, and as many as 4 million of them can’t work, according to a July 2023 Census Bureau report.

Uncertainty about the volume of claims in the pipeline is part of what’s driving some insurers to fight long COVID claims, Ms. Roberts said. Another factor is the lack of clarity around how many years people with long COVID may be out of work, particularly if they’re in their 30s or 40s and might be seeking disability income until they reach retirement age.

“Doctors are not always saying that this person will be permanently disabled,” Ms. Roberts said. “If this person doesn’t get better and they’re disabled until retirement age, this could be a payout in the high six or seven figures if a person is very young and was a very high earner.”

Insurance companies routinely deny claims that can’t be backed up with objective measures, such as specific lab test results or clear findings from a physical exam. But there are steps that can increase the odds of a successful claim for long COVID disability benefits, according to New York–based law firm Hiller.

For starters, patients can document COVID test results, and if testing wasn’t conducted, patients can detail the specific symptoms that led to this diagnosis, Hiller advises. Then patients can keep a daily symptom log at home that run lists all of the specific symptoms that occur at different times during the day and night to help establish a pattern of disability. These logs should provide specific details about every job duty patients have and exactly how specific symptoms of long COVID interfere with these duties.

Even though objective testing is hard to come by for long COVID, people should undergo all the tests they can that may help document the frequency or severity of specific symptoms that make it impossible to carry on with business as usual at work, Hiller advises. This may include neuropsychological testing to document brain fog, a cardiopulmonary exercise test to demonstrate chronic fatigue and the inability to exercise, or a tilt table test to measure dizziness.

Seeking a doctor’s diagnosis can be key to collecting disability payments, in or out of court.

All of this puts a lot of pressure on doctors and patients to build strong cases, said Jonathan Whiteson, MD, codirector of the NYU Langone Health post-COVID care program in New York. “Many physicians are not familiar with the disability benefit paperwork, and so this is a challenge for the doctors to know how to complete and to build the time into their highly scheduled days to take the time needed to complete.

“It’s also challenging because most of the disability benefit forms are ‘generic’ and do not ask specific questions about COVID disability,” Dr. Whiteson added. “It can be like trying to drive a square peg into a round hole.”

Still, when it comes to long COVID, completing disability paperwork is increasingly becoming part of standard care, along with managing medication, rehabilitation therapies, and lifestyle changes to navigate daily life with this illness, Dr. Whiteson noted.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, agreed with this assessment.

“I have done letter upon letter of appeal to disability insurance companies,” she said.

Some doctors, however, are reluctant to step up in such cases, in part because no standard diagnostic guidelines exist for long COVID and because it can be frustrating.

“This is the work that is not paid and causes burnout in physicians,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “The paperwork, the fighting with insurance companies, the resubmission of forms for disability all to get what your patient needs – and then it gets denied.

“We will keep doing this because our patients need this disability income in order to live their lives and to afford what they need for recovery,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “But at some point something has to change because this isn’t sustainable.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing number of long COVID patients, denied disability benefits despite being unable to work, are turning to the courts for legal relief.

At least 30 lawsuits have been filed seeking legal resolution of disability insurance claims, according to searches of court records. In addition, the Social Security Administration said it has received about 52,000 disability claims tied to SARS-CoV-2 infections, which represents 1% of all applications.

But legal experts say those cases may not reflect the total number of cases that have gone to court. They note many claims are initially dismissed and are not appealed by claimants.

“With this system, they deny two-thirds of initial applications, then people who appeal get denied almost 90% of the time, and then they can appeal before a judge,” said Kevin LaPorte, a Social Security disability attorney at LaPorte Law Firm in Oakland, Calif. “What happens next doesn’t have a lot of precedent because long COVID is a mass disabling event, and we haven’t seen that many of these cases get all the way through the legal system yet.”

As a result, the exact number of long COVID disability claims and the number of these cases going to court isn’t clear, he said.

“It can take a year or more for cases to get to court, and even longer to reach resolution,” Mr. LaPorte added. “I suspect the few cases we’ve heard about at this point are going to be the tip of the iceberg.”

The process is convoluted and can drag on for months with multiple denials and appeals along the way. Many disabled workers find their only recourse is to take insurers to court.

Long COVID patients typically apply for disability benefits through private insurance or Social Security. But the process can drag on for months, so many find their only recourse is to take insurers to court, according to legal experts.

But even in the courts, many encounter delays and hurdles to resolution.

In one of the first federal lawsuits involving long COVID disability benefits, William Abrams, a trial and appellate attorney and active marathon runner, sued Unum Life Insurance seeking long-term disability income. Symptoms included extreme fatigue, brain fog, decreased attention and concentration, and nearly daily fevers, causing him to stop working in April 2020.

His diagnosis wasn’t definitive. Three doctors said he had long COVID, and four said he had chronic fatigue syndrome. Unum cited this inconsistency as a rationale for rejecting his claim. But the court sided with Mr. Abrams, granting him disability income. The court concluded: “Unum may be correct that [the plaintiff] has not been correctly diagnosed. But that does not mean he is not sick. If [the plaintiff’s] complaints, and [the doctor’s] assessments, are to be believed, [the plaintiff] cannot focus for more than a few minutes at a time, making it impossible for [the plaintiff] to perform the varied and complex tasks his job requires.”

Unum said in an emailed statement that the company doesn’t comment on specific claims as a matter of policy, adding that its total payouts for disability claims from March 2020 to February 2022 were 35% higher than prepandemic levels. “In general, disability and leave claims connected to COVID-19 have been primarily short-term events with the majority of claimants recovering prior to completing the normal qualification period for long-term disability insurance,” Unum said.

Mr. Abrams prevailed in part because he had detailed documentation of the numerous impairments that eventually required him to stop work, said Michelle Roberts of Roberts Disability Law in Oakland, Calif.

He submitted videos of himself taking his temperature to prove he had almost daily fevers, according to court records. He underwent neuropsychological testing, which found learning deficiencies and memory deficits.

Mr. Abrams also submitted statements from a colleague who worked with him on a complex technology patent case involving radiofrequency identification. Before he got COVID, Mr. Abrams “had the analytical ability, legal acumen, and mental energy to attack that learning curve and get up to speed very rapidly,” according to court records.

“The court focused on credulity.” Ms. Roberts said. “There was all this work to be done to show this person was high functioning and ran marathons and worked in an intense, high-pressure occupation but then couldn’t do anything after long COVID.”

Documentation was also crucial in another early federal long COVID disability lawsuit that was filed in 2022 on behalf of Wendy Haut, an educational software sales representative in California who turned to the courts seeking disability income through her company’s employee benefits plan.

Several of Ms. Haut’s doctors documented a detailed list of long COVID symptoms, including “profound fatigue and extreme cognitive difficulties,” that they said prevented her from working as a sales representative or doing any other type of job. A settlement agreement in June 2022 required Reliance Standard Life Insurance to pay Ms. Haut long-term disability benefits, including previously unpaid benefits, according to a report by the advocacy group Pandemic Patients.

Representatives of Reliance Standard didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The growing number of workers being sidelined by long COVID makes more claims and more court cases likely. Right now, an estimated 16 million working-age Americans aged 18-65 years have long COVID, and as many as 4 million of them can’t work, according to a July 2023 Census Bureau report.

Uncertainty about the volume of claims in the pipeline is part of what’s driving some insurers to fight long COVID claims, Ms. Roberts said. Another factor is the lack of clarity around how many years people with long COVID may be out of work, particularly if they’re in their 30s or 40s and might be seeking disability income until they reach retirement age.

“Doctors are not always saying that this person will be permanently disabled,” Ms. Roberts said. “If this person doesn’t get better and they’re disabled until retirement age, this could be a payout in the high six or seven figures if a person is very young and was a very high earner.”

Insurance companies routinely deny claims that can’t be backed up with objective measures, such as specific lab test results or clear findings from a physical exam. But there are steps that can increase the odds of a successful claim for long COVID disability benefits, according to New York–based law firm Hiller.

For starters, patients can document COVID test results, and if testing wasn’t conducted, patients can detail the specific symptoms that led to this diagnosis, Hiller advises. Then patients can keep a daily symptom log at home that run lists all of the specific symptoms that occur at different times during the day and night to help establish a pattern of disability. These logs should provide specific details about every job duty patients have and exactly how specific symptoms of long COVID interfere with these duties.

Even though objective testing is hard to come by for long COVID, people should undergo all the tests they can that may help document the frequency or severity of specific symptoms that make it impossible to carry on with business as usual at work, Hiller advises. This may include neuropsychological testing to document brain fog, a cardiopulmonary exercise test to demonstrate chronic fatigue and the inability to exercise, or a tilt table test to measure dizziness.

Seeking a doctor’s diagnosis can be key to collecting disability payments, in or out of court.

All of this puts a lot of pressure on doctors and patients to build strong cases, said Jonathan Whiteson, MD, codirector of the NYU Langone Health post-COVID care program in New York. “Many physicians are not familiar with the disability benefit paperwork, and so this is a challenge for the doctors to know how to complete and to build the time into their highly scheduled days to take the time needed to complete.

“It’s also challenging because most of the disability benefit forms are ‘generic’ and do not ask specific questions about COVID disability,” Dr. Whiteson added. “It can be like trying to drive a square peg into a round hole.”

Still, when it comes to long COVID, completing disability paperwork is increasingly becoming part of standard care, along with managing medication, rehabilitation therapies, and lifestyle changes to navigate daily life with this illness, Dr. Whiteson noted.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, agreed with this assessment.

“I have done letter upon letter of appeal to disability insurance companies,” she said.

Some doctors, however, are reluctant to step up in such cases, in part because no standard diagnostic guidelines exist for long COVID and because it can be frustrating.

“This is the work that is not paid and causes burnout in physicians,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “The paperwork, the fighting with insurance companies, the resubmission of forms for disability all to get what your patient needs – and then it gets denied.

“We will keep doing this because our patients need this disability income in order to live their lives and to afford what they need for recovery,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “But at some point something has to change because this isn’t sustainable.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing number of long COVID patients, denied disability benefits despite being unable to work, are turning to the courts for legal relief.

At least 30 lawsuits have been filed seeking legal resolution of disability insurance claims, according to searches of court records. In addition, the Social Security Administration said it has received about 52,000 disability claims tied to SARS-CoV-2 infections, which represents 1% of all applications.

But legal experts say those cases may not reflect the total number of cases that have gone to court. They note many claims are initially dismissed and are not appealed by claimants.

“With this system, they deny two-thirds of initial applications, then people who appeal get denied almost 90% of the time, and then they can appeal before a judge,” said Kevin LaPorte, a Social Security disability attorney at LaPorte Law Firm in Oakland, Calif. “What happens next doesn’t have a lot of precedent because long COVID is a mass disabling event, and we haven’t seen that many of these cases get all the way through the legal system yet.”

As a result, the exact number of long COVID disability claims and the number of these cases going to court isn’t clear, he said.

“It can take a year or more for cases to get to court, and even longer to reach resolution,” Mr. LaPorte added. “I suspect the few cases we’ve heard about at this point are going to be the tip of the iceberg.”

The process is convoluted and can drag on for months with multiple denials and appeals along the way. Many disabled workers find their only recourse is to take insurers to court.

Long COVID patients typically apply for disability benefits through private insurance or Social Security. But the process can drag on for months, so many find their only recourse is to take insurers to court, according to legal experts.

But even in the courts, many encounter delays and hurdles to resolution.

In one of the first federal lawsuits involving long COVID disability benefits, William Abrams, a trial and appellate attorney and active marathon runner, sued Unum Life Insurance seeking long-term disability income. Symptoms included extreme fatigue, brain fog, decreased attention and concentration, and nearly daily fevers, causing him to stop working in April 2020.

His diagnosis wasn’t definitive. Three doctors said he had long COVID, and four said he had chronic fatigue syndrome. Unum cited this inconsistency as a rationale for rejecting his claim. But the court sided with Mr. Abrams, granting him disability income. The court concluded: “Unum may be correct that [the plaintiff] has not been correctly diagnosed. But that does not mean he is not sick. If [the plaintiff’s] complaints, and [the doctor’s] assessments, are to be believed, [the plaintiff] cannot focus for more than a few minutes at a time, making it impossible for [the plaintiff] to perform the varied and complex tasks his job requires.”

Unum said in an emailed statement that the company doesn’t comment on specific claims as a matter of policy, adding that its total payouts for disability claims from March 2020 to February 2022 were 35% higher than prepandemic levels. “In general, disability and leave claims connected to COVID-19 have been primarily short-term events with the majority of claimants recovering prior to completing the normal qualification period for long-term disability insurance,” Unum said.

Mr. Abrams prevailed in part because he had detailed documentation of the numerous impairments that eventually required him to stop work, said Michelle Roberts of Roberts Disability Law in Oakland, Calif.

He submitted videos of himself taking his temperature to prove he had almost daily fevers, according to court records. He underwent neuropsychological testing, which found learning deficiencies and memory deficits.

Mr. Abrams also submitted statements from a colleague who worked with him on a complex technology patent case involving radiofrequency identification. Before he got COVID, Mr. Abrams “had the analytical ability, legal acumen, and mental energy to attack that learning curve and get up to speed very rapidly,” according to court records.

“The court focused on credulity.” Ms. Roberts said. “There was all this work to be done to show this person was high functioning and ran marathons and worked in an intense, high-pressure occupation but then couldn’t do anything after long COVID.”

Documentation was also crucial in another early federal long COVID disability lawsuit that was filed in 2022 on behalf of Wendy Haut, an educational software sales representative in California who turned to the courts seeking disability income through her company’s employee benefits plan.

Several of Ms. Haut’s doctors documented a detailed list of long COVID symptoms, including “profound fatigue and extreme cognitive difficulties,” that they said prevented her from working as a sales representative or doing any other type of job. A settlement agreement in June 2022 required Reliance Standard Life Insurance to pay Ms. Haut long-term disability benefits, including previously unpaid benefits, according to a report by the advocacy group Pandemic Patients.

Representatives of Reliance Standard didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The growing number of workers being sidelined by long COVID makes more claims and more court cases likely. Right now, an estimated 16 million working-age Americans aged 18-65 years have long COVID, and as many as 4 million of them can’t work, according to a July 2023 Census Bureau report.

Uncertainty about the volume of claims in the pipeline is part of what’s driving some insurers to fight long COVID claims, Ms. Roberts said. Another factor is the lack of clarity around how many years people with long COVID may be out of work, particularly if they’re in their 30s or 40s and might be seeking disability income until they reach retirement age.

“Doctors are not always saying that this person will be permanently disabled,” Ms. Roberts said. “If this person doesn’t get better and they’re disabled until retirement age, this could be a payout in the high six or seven figures if a person is very young and was a very high earner.”

Insurance companies routinely deny claims that can’t be backed up with objective measures, such as specific lab test results or clear findings from a physical exam. But there are steps that can increase the odds of a successful claim for long COVID disability benefits, according to New York–based law firm Hiller.

For starters, patients can document COVID test results, and if testing wasn’t conducted, patients can detail the specific symptoms that led to this diagnosis, Hiller advises. Then patients can keep a daily symptom log at home that run lists all of the specific symptoms that occur at different times during the day and night to help establish a pattern of disability. These logs should provide specific details about every job duty patients have and exactly how specific symptoms of long COVID interfere with these duties.

Even though objective testing is hard to come by for long COVID, people should undergo all the tests they can that may help document the frequency or severity of specific symptoms that make it impossible to carry on with business as usual at work, Hiller advises. This may include neuropsychological testing to document brain fog, a cardiopulmonary exercise test to demonstrate chronic fatigue and the inability to exercise, or a tilt table test to measure dizziness.

Seeking a doctor’s diagnosis can be key to collecting disability payments, in or out of court.

All of this puts a lot of pressure on doctors and patients to build strong cases, said Jonathan Whiteson, MD, codirector of the NYU Langone Health post-COVID care program in New York. “Many physicians are not familiar with the disability benefit paperwork, and so this is a challenge for the doctors to know how to complete and to build the time into their highly scheduled days to take the time needed to complete.

“It’s also challenging because most of the disability benefit forms are ‘generic’ and do not ask specific questions about COVID disability,” Dr. Whiteson added. “It can be like trying to drive a square peg into a round hole.”

Still, when it comes to long COVID, completing disability paperwork is increasingly becoming part of standard care, along with managing medication, rehabilitation therapies, and lifestyle changes to navigate daily life with this illness, Dr. Whiteson noted.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, agreed with this assessment.

“I have done letter upon letter of appeal to disability insurance companies,” she said.

Some doctors, however, are reluctant to step up in such cases, in part because no standard diagnostic guidelines exist for long COVID and because it can be frustrating.

“This is the work that is not paid and causes burnout in physicians,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “The paperwork, the fighting with insurance companies, the resubmission of forms for disability all to get what your patient needs – and then it gets denied.

“We will keep doing this because our patients need this disability income in order to live their lives and to afford what they need for recovery,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “But at some point something has to change because this isn’t sustainable.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two scores, one simple and one comprehensive, may predict inflammatory arthritis (IA) in people who are already at elevated risk for these immune-related conditions, according to new research from England.

If validated in further studies, a new simple score using common biomarkers may help identify individuals who can be managed in primary care as well as higher-risk patients who should be referred to a rheumatologist.

The researchers designed a second comprehensive score adding genetics and ultrasound as a tool to identify patients at highest risk for IA for intervention studies and to guide clinical monitoring and care by specialists.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Though there are blood markers and early symptoms in patients that may signal a higher risk for IA, “we don’t know what to do with those people yet,” said Kevin D. Deane, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and chair in rheumatology research at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“Understanding how to assess these people and predict who’s going to go on to get full blown IA that we should actually treat is very beneficial to the field,” Dr. Deane said. He was not involved with the research but had reviewed an early draft of the paper.
 

Study seeks to stratify at-risk population

For the study, researchers recruited 455 participants from June 2008 to November 2021, primarily through the UK Primary Care Clinical Research Network. All individuals had new musculoskeletal symptoms, a positive test for anticitrullinated protein antibodies (anti-CCP), and no clinical synovitis.

The researchers selected for anti-CCP positivity because these antibodies are associated with a more aggressive arthritis phenotype. Interventional trials have also found that these anti-CCP–positive individuals are the most responsive to disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy prior to IA development. Patients were followed for at least 48 weeks or until an IA diagnosis.

Using data from this cohort, the team ran statistical analyses guided by potential clinical impact. For the simple score, they aimed to ensure that most people who would go on to develop IA would be identified earlier in clinical practice. For the comprehensive score, they wanted to balance the potential harm of giving preventive treatment to someone who would not develop IA with failing to provide preventive treatment to someone who would develop IA, the authors write.

They developed two scores: a simple score to identify people at lower risk for IA and a comprehensive score to stratify high-risk individuals. The simple score used anti-CCP level, rheumatoid factor value, early morning stiffness, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate to calculate risk.

In addition to these factors, the comprehensive score added smoking history, ultrasound abnormalities, genetic markers for the rheumatoid arthritis shared epitope, as well as patient-reported outcomes from the Health Assessment Questionnaire and the visual analogue scale for global pain.

The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.


 

Simple score rates more than half as low risk

The simple score identified 249 low-risk individuals, defined as having a less than 10% chance of developing IA within 1 year, with a 5% false-negative rate. This score can help determine which individuals do not need to be referred to a specialist even though they have some known risk factors, said Paul Emery, MD, director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre and clinical professor at the University of Leeds in England. He is a co–senior author of the research.

“If you had unlimited resources, you’d refer everyone. But in the real world, we would be overloaded in secondary care, and it just wouldn’t work,” he said. “This is a way of making sure the right people are referred into secondary care.”

The comprehensive score identified 119 high-risk individuals, defined as having a 50% chance or greater of developing IA in 5 years, with a false-positive rate of 29%. Of this high-risk group, 40% developed IA within 1 year, and 71% developed IA in 5 years.

Beyond identifying those who should be referred to specialist care, Dr. Emery noted, this score could be used in research studies to find patients for experimental clinical trials aimed at delaying or preventing the onset of IA.

Both Dr. Emery and Dr. Deane agreed that further research is needed to validate these findings in different patient populations as well as to understand how the scores could be integrated into clinical practice.
 

What is the role of anti-CCP tests in primary care?

The study also brings up additional questions about the use of anti-CCP tests in primary care, Dr. Deane said. Though previously considered a “specialty test” 10-15 years ago, “now, we really want primary care to do this test along with the rheumatoid factor test,” he noted.

Because the study only included individuals with anti-CCP antibodies, it did not touch on which patients should be getting tested in the first place. Would all patients coming into primary care with joint pain benefit from these blood-marker tests, Deane asked, or would only certain patients qualify? “I think that’s uncertain, and we need to learn more,” he said.

An additional caveat is that the researchers used abnormal ultrasound findings as a predictor of future IA in the comprehensive model, but many clinicians already use ultrasound to identify arthritis, Dr. Deane said.

“If a rheumatologist sees power Doppler signal or erosions, even if the physical examination of a joint didn’t find swelling or inflammation, then they are likely to say that this person has IA now,” and will start treatment, he said. “Because of that, it could be challenging to use ultrasound as a ‘predictive’ marker in clinical practice,” he added, but additional research could help elucidate when to wait on treatment even with abnormal ultrasound findings.

This study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Emery disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, and Samsung Bioepis. Dr. Deane reports receiving consulting fees from Werfen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two scores, one simple and one comprehensive, may predict inflammatory arthritis (IA) in people who are already at elevated risk for these immune-related conditions, according to new research from England.

If validated in further studies, a new simple score using common biomarkers may help identify individuals who can be managed in primary care as well as higher-risk patients who should be referred to a rheumatologist.

The researchers designed a second comprehensive score adding genetics and ultrasound as a tool to identify patients at highest risk for IA for intervention studies and to guide clinical monitoring and care by specialists.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Though there are blood markers and early symptoms in patients that may signal a higher risk for IA, “we don’t know what to do with those people yet,” said Kevin D. Deane, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and chair in rheumatology research at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“Understanding how to assess these people and predict who’s going to go on to get full blown IA that we should actually treat is very beneficial to the field,” Dr. Deane said. He was not involved with the research but had reviewed an early draft of the paper.
 

Study seeks to stratify at-risk population

For the study, researchers recruited 455 participants from June 2008 to November 2021, primarily through the UK Primary Care Clinical Research Network. All individuals had new musculoskeletal symptoms, a positive test for anticitrullinated protein antibodies (anti-CCP), and no clinical synovitis.

The researchers selected for anti-CCP positivity because these antibodies are associated with a more aggressive arthritis phenotype. Interventional trials have also found that these anti-CCP–positive individuals are the most responsive to disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy prior to IA development. Patients were followed for at least 48 weeks or until an IA diagnosis.

Using data from this cohort, the team ran statistical analyses guided by potential clinical impact. For the simple score, they aimed to ensure that most people who would go on to develop IA would be identified earlier in clinical practice. For the comprehensive score, they wanted to balance the potential harm of giving preventive treatment to someone who would not develop IA with failing to provide preventive treatment to someone who would develop IA, the authors write.

They developed two scores: a simple score to identify people at lower risk for IA and a comprehensive score to stratify high-risk individuals. The simple score used anti-CCP level, rheumatoid factor value, early morning stiffness, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate to calculate risk.

In addition to these factors, the comprehensive score added smoking history, ultrasound abnormalities, genetic markers for the rheumatoid arthritis shared epitope, as well as patient-reported outcomes from the Health Assessment Questionnaire and the visual analogue scale for global pain.

The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.


 

Simple score rates more than half as low risk

The simple score identified 249 low-risk individuals, defined as having a less than 10% chance of developing IA within 1 year, with a 5% false-negative rate. This score can help determine which individuals do not need to be referred to a specialist even though they have some known risk factors, said Paul Emery, MD, director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre and clinical professor at the University of Leeds in England. He is a co–senior author of the research.

“If you had unlimited resources, you’d refer everyone. But in the real world, we would be overloaded in secondary care, and it just wouldn’t work,” he said. “This is a way of making sure the right people are referred into secondary care.”

The comprehensive score identified 119 high-risk individuals, defined as having a 50% chance or greater of developing IA in 5 years, with a false-positive rate of 29%. Of this high-risk group, 40% developed IA within 1 year, and 71% developed IA in 5 years.

Beyond identifying those who should be referred to specialist care, Dr. Emery noted, this score could be used in research studies to find patients for experimental clinical trials aimed at delaying or preventing the onset of IA.

Both Dr. Emery and Dr. Deane agreed that further research is needed to validate these findings in different patient populations as well as to understand how the scores could be integrated into clinical practice.
 

What is the role of anti-CCP tests in primary care?

The study also brings up additional questions about the use of anti-CCP tests in primary care, Dr. Deane said. Though previously considered a “specialty test” 10-15 years ago, “now, we really want primary care to do this test along with the rheumatoid factor test,” he noted.

Because the study only included individuals with anti-CCP antibodies, it did not touch on which patients should be getting tested in the first place. Would all patients coming into primary care with joint pain benefit from these blood-marker tests, Deane asked, or would only certain patients qualify? “I think that’s uncertain, and we need to learn more,” he said.

An additional caveat is that the researchers used abnormal ultrasound findings as a predictor of future IA in the comprehensive model, but many clinicians already use ultrasound to identify arthritis, Dr. Deane said.

“If a rheumatologist sees power Doppler signal or erosions, even if the physical examination of a joint didn’t find swelling or inflammation, then they are likely to say that this person has IA now,” and will start treatment, he said. “Because of that, it could be challenging to use ultrasound as a ‘predictive’ marker in clinical practice,” he added, but additional research could help elucidate when to wait on treatment even with abnormal ultrasound findings.

This study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Emery disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, and Samsung Bioepis. Dr. Deane reports receiving consulting fees from Werfen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two scores, one simple and one comprehensive, may predict inflammatory arthritis (IA) in people who are already at elevated risk for these immune-related conditions, according to new research from England.

If validated in further studies, a new simple score using common biomarkers may help identify individuals who can be managed in primary care as well as higher-risk patients who should be referred to a rheumatologist.

The researchers designed a second comprehensive score adding genetics and ultrasound as a tool to identify patients at highest risk for IA for intervention studies and to guide clinical monitoring and care by specialists.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Though there are blood markers and early symptoms in patients that may signal a higher risk for IA, “we don’t know what to do with those people yet,” said Kevin D. Deane, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and chair in rheumatology research at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“Understanding how to assess these people and predict who’s going to go on to get full blown IA that we should actually treat is very beneficial to the field,” Dr. Deane said. He was not involved with the research but had reviewed an early draft of the paper.
 

Study seeks to stratify at-risk population

For the study, researchers recruited 455 participants from June 2008 to November 2021, primarily through the UK Primary Care Clinical Research Network. All individuals had new musculoskeletal symptoms, a positive test for anticitrullinated protein antibodies (anti-CCP), and no clinical synovitis.

The researchers selected for anti-CCP positivity because these antibodies are associated with a more aggressive arthritis phenotype. Interventional trials have also found that these anti-CCP–positive individuals are the most responsive to disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy prior to IA development. Patients were followed for at least 48 weeks or until an IA diagnosis.

Using data from this cohort, the team ran statistical analyses guided by potential clinical impact. For the simple score, they aimed to ensure that most people who would go on to develop IA would be identified earlier in clinical practice. For the comprehensive score, they wanted to balance the potential harm of giving preventive treatment to someone who would not develop IA with failing to provide preventive treatment to someone who would develop IA, the authors write.

They developed two scores: a simple score to identify people at lower risk for IA and a comprehensive score to stratify high-risk individuals. The simple score used anti-CCP level, rheumatoid factor value, early morning stiffness, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate to calculate risk.

In addition to these factors, the comprehensive score added smoking history, ultrasound abnormalities, genetic markers for the rheumatoid arthritis shared epitope, as well as patient-reported outcomes from the Health Assessment Questionnaire and the visual analogue scale for global pain.

The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.


 

Simple score rates more than half as low risk

The simple score identified 249 low-risk individuals, defined as having a less than 10% chance of developing IA within 1 year, with a 5% false-negative rate. This score can help determine which individuals do not need to be referred to a specialist even though they have some known risk factors, said Paul Emery, MD, director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre and clinical professor at the University of Leeds in England. He is a co–senior author of the research.

“If you had unlimited resources, you’d refer everyone. But in the real world, we would be overloaded in secondary care, and it just wouldn’t work,” he said. “This is a way of making sure the right people are referred into secondary care.”

The comprehensive score identified 119 high-risk individuals, defined as having a 50% chance or greater of developing IA in 5 years, with a false-positive rate of 29%. Of this high-risk group, 40% developed IA within 1 year, and 71% developed IA in 5 years.

Beyond identifying those who should be referred to specialist care, Dr. Emery noted, this score could be used in research studies to find patients for experimental clinical trials aimed at delaying or preventing the onset of IA.

Both Dr. Emery and Dr. Deane agreed that further research is needed to validate these findings in different patient populations as well as to understand how the scores could be integrated into clinical practice.
 

What is the role of anti-CCP tests in primary care?

The study also brings up additional questions about the use of anti-CCP tests in primary care, Dr. Deane said. Though previously considered a “specialty test” 10-15 years ago, “now, we really want primary care to do this test along with the rheumatoid factor test,” he noted.

Because the study only included individuals with anti-CCP antibodies, it did not touch on which patients should be getting tested in the first place. Would all patients coming into primary care with joint pain benefit from these blood-marker tests, Deane asked, or would only certain patients qualify? “I think that’s uncertain, and we need to learn more,” he said.

An additional caveat is that the researchers used abnormal ultrasound findings as a predictor of future IA in the comprehensive model, but many clinicians already use ultrasound to identify arthritis, Dr. Deane said.

“If a rheumatologist sees power Doppler signal or erosions, even if the physical examination of a joint didn’t find swelling or inflammation, then they are likely to say that this person has IA now,” and will start treatment, he said. “Because of that, it could be challenging to use ultrasound as a ‘predictive’ marker in clinical practice,” he added, but additional research could help elucidate when to wait on treatment even with abnormal ultrasound findings.

This study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Emery disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, and Samsung Bioepis. Dr. Deane reports receiving consulting fees from Werfen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the sixth year in a row, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore has been named the top hospital for rheumatology by U.S. News & World Report.

The No. 2 slot went to the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), New York. The Cleveland Clinic took third place. The magazine announced the 2023-2024 rankings on Aug. 1.

Most specialty rankings are determined through data on patient outcomes and hospital performance, but rheumatology rankings, as well as those for ophthalmology and psychiatry, were determined through expert opinion. For these three specialties, most care is delivered in outpatient settings, according to U.S. News & World Report, and “the number of outpatients who die in these specialties is so low that risk-adjusted mortality rates ... are not significantly tied to the quality of care.” Thus, the rankings are based on specialist responses to U.S. News surveys from the past 3 years.

The rankings for 11 rheumatology hospitals are as follows:

• 1. Johns Hopkins Hospital
• 2. HSS, New York–Presbyterian University Hospital of Columbia and Cornell
• 3. Cleveland Clinic
• 4. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 5. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
• 7. UCSF Health-UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York
• 9. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 10. University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital
• 11. University of Michigan Health–Ann Arbor

Nearly all hospitals on this list also made the Best Hospitals Honor Roll for 2023-2024. These Honor Roll hospitals excelled in care across multiple specialties. The University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital was not on the honor roll but was ranked among the nation’s top 50 hospitals in cardiology, diabetes & endocrinology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, and obstetrics & gynecology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the sixth year in a row, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore has been named the top hospital for rheumatology by U.S. News & World Report.

The No. 2 slot went to the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), New York. The Cleveland Clinic took third place. The magazine announced the 2023-2024 rankings on Aug. 1.

Most specialty rankings are determined through data on patient outcomes and hospital performance, but rheumatology rankings, as well as those for ophthalmology and psychiatry, were determined through expert opinion. For these three specialties, most care is delivered in outpatient settings, according to U.S. News & World Report, and “the number of outpatients who die in these specialties is so low that risk-adjusted mortality rates ... are not significantly tied to the quality of care.” Thus, the rankings are based on specialist responses to U.S. News surveys from the past 3 years.

The rankings for 11 rheumatology hospitals are as follows:

• 1. Johns Hopkins Hospital
• 2. HSS, New York–Presbyterian University Hospital of Columbia and Cornell
• 3. Cleveland Clinic
• 4. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 5. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
• 7. UCSF Health-UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York
• 9. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 10. University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital
• 11. University of Michigan Health–Ann Arbor

Nearly all hospitals on this list also made the Best Hospitals Honor Roll for 2023-2024. These Honor Roll hospitals excelled in care across multiple specialties. The University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital was not on the honor roll but was ranked among the nation’s top 50 hospitals in cardiology, diabetes & endocrinology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, and obstetrics & gynecology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the sixth year in a row, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore has been named the top hospital for rheumatology by U.S. News & World Report.

The No. 2 slot went to the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), New York. The Cleveland Clinic took third place. The magazine announced the 2023-2024 rankings on Aug. 1.

Most specialty rankings are determined through data on patient outcomes and hospital performance, but rheumatology rankings, as well as those for ophthalmology and psychiatry, were determined through expert opinion. For these three specialties, most care is delivered in outpatient settings, according to U.S. News & World Report, and “the number of outpatients who die in these specialties is so low that risk-adjusted mortality rates ... are not significantly tied to the quality of care.” Thus, the rankings are based on specialist responses to U.S. News surveys from the past 3 years.

The rankings for 11 rheumatology hospitals are as follows:

• 1. Johns Hopkins Hospital
• 2. HSS, New York–Presbyterian University Hospital of Columbia and Cornell
• 3. Cleveland Clinic
• 4. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 5. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
• 7. UCSF Health-UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York
• 9. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 10. University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital
• 11. University of Michigan Health–Ann Arbor

Nearly all hospitals on this list also made the Best Hospitals Honor Roll for 2023-2024. These Honor Roll hospitals excelled in care across multiple specialties. The University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital was not on the honor roll but was ranked among the nation’s top 50 hospitals in cardiology, diabetes & endocrinology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, and obstetrics & gynecology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis had a significantly higher risk than do those without RA for developing aortic stenosis (AS), according to a large national cohort of patients.

RA has been associated with an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular disease, but the association of RA with the risk for AS remains unclear, Tate M. Johnson, MD, of VA Nebraska–Western Iowa Health Care System, Omaha, and colleagues wrote. 

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers identified 73,070 adults with RA and 639,268 matched control individuals without RA using data from Veterans Affairs and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from 2000 to 2019. 

The patients and control individuals were predominantly men (about 87%), and most were White (72.3% of patients and 61.7% of control individuals). The mean ages of the patients and control individuals were similar (63.0 vs. 61.9, respectively). 

The main outcome of incident AS was defined as a composite of inpatient or outpatient AS diagnoses, surgical or transcatheter aortic valve intervention, or AS-related death. 

Over a mean follow-up period of 7.9 years in patients with RA and 8.8 years in control individuals, the researchers found 16,109 composite AS outcomes over a period of 6,223,150 person-years, with 2,303 that occurred in patients with RA. 

The multivariate model adjusted for race, ethnicity, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), rural versus urban residence, comorbidities, and health care use.

Overall, RA was associated with an increased risk for the composite AS outcome (hazard ratio, 1.66).

After adjusting for confounders, RA remained associated with an increased risk for composite AS diagnoses, aortic valve intervention, and AS-related death (adjusted HRs, 1.48, 1.34, and 1.26, respectively). Altogether, the incidence of composite AS events was 3.97 per 1,000 person-years in patients with RA versus 2.45 per 1,000 person-years in control individuals, with an absolute difference of 1.52 composite AS events per 1,000 person-years.

The results “emphasize that valvular heart disease may be an underrecognized contributor to the persistent CVD [cardiovascular disease]-related mortality gap in RA, particularly given the lack of improvement in AS-specific risk over time,” the researchers wrote. 

Several traditional CVD risk factors (for example, smoking status, diabetes, and coronary artery disease) were not independently associated with AS onset in patients with RA. However, male sex, hypertension, stroke, and other noncoronary CVDs were associated with incident AS in the patients with RA, and increasing age and BMI were associated with stepwise increases in AS risk.

The findings were limited by several factors including the infrequency of AS-related events and consequent modest differences in absolute risk, the researchers noted. The predominantly male cohort may limit generalizability of results because RA is more common in women. Other limitations included the predominantly male population and possible misclassification of RA status. 

Overall, the results demonstrate an increased risk for AS, AS-related intervention, and AS-related death in people with RA. More research is needed to examine AS and valvular heart disease as potential complications in this population, they concluded. 

The study was supported by the Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention, Joint Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense Mortality Data Repository National Death Index. Dr. Johnson disclosed grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation during the conduct of the study but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Other authors disclosed fees and honoraria from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis had a significantly higher risk than do those without RA for developing aortic stenosis (AS), according to a large national cohort of patients.

RA has been associated with an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular disease, but the association of RA with the risk for AS remains unclear, Tate M. Johnson, MD, of VA Nebraska–Western Iowa Health Care System, Omaha, and colleagues wrote. 

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers identified 73,070 adults with RA and 639,268 matched control individuals without RA using data from Veterans Affairs and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from 2000 to 2019. 

The patients and control individuals were predominantly men (about 87%), and most were White (72.3% of patients and 61.7% of control individuals). The mean ages of the patients and control individuals were similar (63.0 vs. 61.9, respectively). 

The main outcome of incident AS was defined as a composite of inpatient or outpatient AS diagnoses, surgical or transcatheter aortic valve intervention, or AS-related death. 

Over a mean follow-up period of 7.9 years in patients with RA and 8.8 years in control individuals, the researchers found 16,109 composite AS outcomes over a period of 6,223,150 person-years, with 2,303 that occurred in patients with RA. 

The multivariate model adjusted for race, ethnicity, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), rural versus urban residence, comorbidities, and health care use.

Overall, RA was associated with an increased risk for the composite AS outcome (hazard ratio, 1.66).

After adjusting for confounders, RA remained associated with an increased risk for composite AS diagnoses, aortic valve intervention, and AS-related death (adjusted HRs, 1.48, 1.34, and 1.26, respectively). Altogether, the incidence of composite AS events was 3.97 per 1,000 person-years in patients with RA versus 2.45 per 1,000 person-years in control individuals, with an absolute difference of 1.52 composite AS events per 1,000 person-years.

The results “emphasize that valvular heart disease may be an underrecognized contributor to the persistent CVD [cardiovascular disease]-related mortality gap in RA, particularly given the lack of improvement in AS-specific risk over time,” the researchers wrote. 

Several traditional CVD risk factors (for example, smoking status, diabetes, and coronary artery disease) were not independently associated with AS onset in patients with RA. However, male sex, hypertension, stroke, and other noncoronary CVDs were associated with incident AS in the patients with RA, and increasing age and BMI were associated with stepwise increases in AS risk.

The findings were limited by several factors including the infrequency of AS-related events and consequent modest differences in absolute risk, the researchers noted. The predominantly male cohort may limit generalizability of results because RA is more common in women. Other limitations included the predominantly male population and possible misclassification of RA status. 

Overall, the results demonstrate an increased risk for AS, AS-related intervention, and AS-related death in people with RA. More research is needed to examine AS and valvular heart disease as potential complications in this population, they concluded. 

The study was supported by the Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention, Joint Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense Mortality Data Repository National Death Index. Dr. Johnson disclosed grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation during the conduct of the study but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Other authors disclosed fees and honoraria from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis had a significantly higher risk than do those without RA for developing aortic stenosis (AS), according to a large national cohort of patients.

RA has been associated with an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular disease, but the association of RA with the risk for AS remains unclear, Tate M. Johnson, MD, of VA Nebraska–Western Iowa Health Care System, Omaha, and colleagues wrote. 

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers identified 73,070 adults with RA and 639,268 matched control individuals without RA using data from Veterans Affairs and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from 2000 to 2019. 

The patients and control individuals were predominantly men (about 87%), and most were White (72.3% of patients and 61.7% of control individuals). The mean ages of the patients and control individuals were similar (63.0 vs. 61.9, respectively). 

The main outcome of incident AS was defined as a composite of inpatient or outpatient AS diagnoses, surgical or transcatheter aortic valve intervention, or AS-related death. 

Over a mean follow-up period of 7.9 years in patients with RA and 8.8 years in control individuals, the researchers found 16,109 composite AS outcomes over a period of 6,223,150 person-years, with 2,303 that occurred in patients with RA. 

The multivariate model adjusted for race, ethnicity, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), rural versus urban residence, comorbidities, and health care use.

Overall, RA was associated with an increased risk for the composite AS outcome (hazard ratio, 1.66).

After adjusting for confounders, RA remained associated with an increased risk for composite AS diagnoses, aortic valve intervention, and AS-related death (adjusted HRs, 1.48, 1.34, and 1.26, respectively). Altogether, the incidence of composite AS events was 3.97 per 1,000 person-years in patients with RA versus 2.45 per 1,000 person-years in control individuals, with an absolute difference of 1.52 composite AS events per 1,000 person-years.

The results “emphasize that valvular heart disease may be an underrecognized contributor to the persistent CVD [cardiovascular disease]-related mortality gap in RA, particularly given the lack of improvement in AS-specific risk over time,” the researchers wrote. 

Several traditional CVD risk factors (for example, smoking status, diabetes, and coronary artery disease) were not independently associated with AS onset in patients with RA. However, male sex, hypertension, stroke, and other noncoronary CVDs were associated with incident AS in the patients with RA, and increasing age and BMI were associated with stepwise increases in AS risk.

The findings were limited by several factors including the infrequency of AS-related events and consequent modest differences in absolute risk, the researchers noted. The predominantly male cohort may limit generalizability of results because RA is more common in women. Other limitations included the predominantly male population and possible misclassification of RA status. 

Overall, the results demonstrate an increased risk for AS, AS-related intervention, and AS-related death in people with RA. More research is needed to examine AS and valvular heart disease as potential complications in this population, they concluded. 

The study was supported by the Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention, Joint Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense Mortality Data Repository National Death Index. Dr. Johnson disclosed grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation during the conduct of the study but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Other authors disclosed fees and honoraria from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Who owns your genes? The assumption of any sane person would be that he or she owns his or her own genes. I mean, how dumb a question is that?
 

Yet, in 2007, Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD, described how an American company had claimed ownership of genetic materials and believed that it had the right to commercialize those naturally occurring bits of DNA. Myriad Genetics began by patenting mutations of BRCA. Dr. Michaeli issued a call for action to support early efforts to pass legislation to restore and preserve individual ownership of one’s own genes. This is a historically important quick read/watch/listen. Give it a click.

In related legislation, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), originally introduced by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter in 1995, was ultimately spearheaded by California Rep. Xavier Becerra (now Secretary of Health & Human Services) to passage by the House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, by a vote of 420-9-3. Led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, by a vote of 95-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

GINA is a landmark piece of legislation that protects Americans. It prohibits employers and health insurers from discriminating against people on the basis of their genetic information, and it also prohibits the use of genetic information in life insurance and long-term care insurance.

Its impact has been immense. GINA has been indispensable in promoting progress in the field of human genetics. By safeguarding individuals against discrimination based on genetic information, it has encouraged broader participation in research, built public trust, and stimulated advancements in genetic testing and personalized medicine. GINA’s impact extends beyond borders and has influenced much of the rest of the world.

As important as GINA was to the field, more was needed. National legislation to protect ownership of genetic materials has, despite many attempts, still not become law in the United States. However, in our system of divided government and balance of power, we also have independent courts.

June 13, 2023, was the 10th anniversary of another landmark event. The legal case is that of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a Salt Lake City–based biotech company that held patents on isolated DNA sequences associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP, joined by several other organizations and researchers, challenged Myriad’s gene patents, arguing that human genes are naturally occurring and, therefore, should not be subject to patenting. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are products of nature and therefore are not eligible for patent protection.

This was a pivotal decision in the field of human genetics and had a broad impact on genetic research. The decision clarified that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, which means that researchers are free to use these sequences in their research without fear of patent infringement. This has led to a vast increase in the amount of genetic research being conducted, and it has also led to the development of new genetic tests and treatments.

The numbers of genetic research papers published in scientific journals and of genetic tests available to consumers have increased significantly, while the cost of genetic testing has decreased significantly. The AMP v. Myriad decision is likely to continue to have an impact for many years to come.

In 2023, Americans do own their own genes and can feel secure in them not being used against us. Thank you, common sense, activist American molecular pathologists, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court for siding with the people.Dr. Lundbert is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Who owns your genes? The assumption of any sane person would be that he or she owns his or her own genes. I mean, how dumb a question is that?
 

Yet, in 2007, Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD, described how an American company had claimed ownership of genetic materials and believed that it had the right to commercialize those naturally occurring bits of DNA. Myriad Genetics began by patenting mutations of BRCA. Dr. Michaeli issued a call for action to support early efforts to pass legislation to restore and preserve individual ownership of one’s own genes. This is a historically important quick read/watch/listen. Give it a click.

In related legislation, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), originally introduced by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter in 1995, was ultimately spearheaded by California Rep. Xavier Becerra (now Secretary of Health & Human Services) to passage by the House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, by a vote of 420-9-3. Led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, by a vote of 95-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

GINA is a landmark piece of legislation that protects Americans. It prohibits employers and health insurers from discriminating against people on the basis of their genetic information, and it also prohibits the use of genetic information in life insurance and long-term care insurance.

Its impact has been immense. GINA has been indispensable in promoting progress in the field of human genetics. By safeguarding individuals against discrimination based on genetic information, it has encouraged broader participation in research, built public trust, and stimulated advancements in genetic testing and personalized medicine. GINA’s impact extends beyond borders and has influenced much of the rest of the world.

As important as GINA was to the field, more was needed. National legislation to protect ownership of genetic materials has, despite many attempts, still not become law in the United States. However, in our system of divided government and balance of power, we also have independent courts.

June 13, 2023, was the 10th anniversary of another landmark event. The legal case is that of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a Salt Lake City–based biotech company that held patents on isolated DNA sequences associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP, joined by several other organizations and researchers, challenged Myriad’s gene patents, arguing that human genes are naturally occurring and, therefore, should not be subject to patenting. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are products of nature and therefore are not eligible for patent protection.

This was a pivotal decision in the field of human genetics and had a broad impact on genetic research. The decision clarified that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, which means that researchers are free to use these sequences in their research without fear of patent infringement. This has led to a vast increase in the amount of genetic research being conducted, and it has also led to the development of new genetic tests and treatments.

The numbers of genetic research papers published in scientific journals and of genetic tests available to consumers have increased significantly, while the cost of genetic testing has decreased significantly. The AMP v. Myriad decision is likely to continue to have an impact for many years to come.

In 2023, Americans do own their own genes and can feel secure in them not being used against us. Thank you, common sense, activist American molecular pathologists, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court for siding with the people.Dr. Lundbert is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Who owns your genes? The assumption of any sane person would be that he or she owns his or her own genes. I mean, how dumb a question is that?
 

Yet, in 2007, Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD, described how an American company had claimed ownership of genetic materials and believed that it had the right to commercialize those naturally occurring bits of DNA. Myriad Genetics began by patenting mutations of BRCA. Dr. Michaeli issued a call for action to support early efforts to pass legislation to restore and preserve individual ownership of one’s own genes. This is a historically important quick read/watch/listen. Give it a click.

In related legislation, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), originally introduced by New York Rep. Louise Slaughter in 1995, was ultimately spearheaded by California Rep. Xavier Becerra (now Secretary of Health & Human Services) to passage by the House of Representatives on April 25, 2007, by a vote of 420-9-3. Led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was passed by the Senate on April 24, 2008, by a vote of 95-0. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

GINA is a landmark piece of legislation that protects Americans. It prohibits employers and health insurers from discriminating against people on the basis of their genetic information, and it also prohibits the use of genetic information in life insurance and long-term care insurance.

Its impact has been immense. GINA has been indispensable in promoting progress in the field of human genetics. By safeguarding individuals against discrimination based on genetic information, it has encouraged broader participation in research, built public trust, and stimulated advancements in genetic testing and personalized medicine. GINA’s impact extends beyond borders and has influenced much of the rest of the world.

As important as GINA was to the field, more was needed. National legislation to protect ownership of genetic materials has, despite many attempts, still not become law in the United States. However, in our system of divided government and balance of power, we also have independent courts.

June 13, 2023, was the 10th anniversary of another landmark event. The legal case is that of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a Salt Lake City–based biotech company that held patents on isolated DNA sequences associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The AMP, joined by several other organizations and researchers, challenged Myriad’s gene patents, arguing that human genes are naturally occurring and, therefore, should not be subject to patenting. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are products of nature and therefore are not eligible for patent protection.

This was a pivotal decision in the field of human genetics and had a broad impact on genetic research. The decision clarified that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, which means that researchers are free to use these sequences in their research without fear of patent infringement. This has led to a vast increase in the amount of genetic research being conducted, and it has also led to the development of new genetic tests and treatments.

The numbers of genetic research papers published in scientific journals and of genetic tests available to consumers have increased significantly, while the cost of genetic testing has decreased significantly. The AMP v. Myriad decision is likely to continue to have an impact for many years to come.

In 2023, Americans do own their own genes and can feel secure in them not being used against us. Thank you, common sense, activist American molecular pathologists, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court for siding with the people.Dr. Lundbert is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Here are 10 ways to improve health communication with patients. These tips will place patients at ease, increase their adherence to recommendations, and make the doctor’s visit a lot more enjoyable for them.
 

No. 1: Be an active listener

The first tip is to be an active listener and help guide the history-taking process by asking for clarification when needed.

Quickly figure out the patient’s chief complaint. Which symptom is the most severe?

Ask them for symptom-modifying factors, such as onset, duration, frequency, and a pain description. Is the abdominal pain sharp or crampy, dull and achy, or pressure-like? What makes the symptoms better or worse?

As many of us were taught in medical school, 80% of the diagnosis is in a patient’s history and description.
 

No. 2: Ask questions that resonate with patients

What can we do to help elicit an accurate history from the patient when they’re not providing the needed information or being helpful enough?

The easiest way is to ask your patient in a completely different way but one that resonates with them. For instance, ask how the abdominal pain is affecting their quality of life. That will help focus the history taking and encourage the patient to share details.

Does the pain keep them awake at night? Are they able to eat a normal-sized meal? Or are they forced to eat tiny snacks? Is the pain interfering with work or school?

By providing a framework, the patient will be more passionate about sharing the details of their history.
 

No. 3: Help patients organize their story

Sometimes, patients provide details in a nonchronological order, jumping all over the place.

A super helpful technique is to explain to the patient that you have a story to write for your computer note, and for them to think back to when they first started noticing their abdominal pain or rectal bleeding symptoms. When were the most-severe episodes? How frequent are the episodes? What’s the volume of their rectal bleeding?

If the patient realizes that you’re trying to write a story synopsis, they will provide information in a much more organized way.
 

No. 4: Determine patient’s language preference

Quickly determine the patient’s language preference. We want patients to feel extremely comfortable.

Whenever possible, use a certified interpreter. Language phone lines, in-person interpreters, and video conferencing are widely available today. It’s worth investing in this technology so that we can provide the best possible care to immigrants and refugees.

Conversely, avoid using family members as interpreters because they may not be adequately trained in medical vocabulary.
 

No. 5: Use simple language

When providing explanations, use simple language that your patient can understand and identify with.

For example, use analogies like “the heart is a pump” or the diverticula are thin areas of the colon that can bleed if the blood vessel is too close to the surface.
 

No. 6: Determine level of medical literacy

Determine your patient’s level of medical literacy. Some of our patients did not graduate from high school. Some patients can’t read very well. Therefore, your discharge instructions and handouts should sometimes be written on a third-grade level.

If patients can’t read, write medication instructions with symbols. Draw a sun for medications that are supposed to be taken in the morning and draw a moon if a medication is supposed to be taken at night.

Always very carefully review the instructions with the patient.
 

No. 7: Check in with the patient

During the visit, frequently check in with the patient to make sure that they understand what you’re asking or what you’re trying to explain to them.

No. 8: Include family member as patient advocate

If the patient is accompanied by a family member, help them serve in the important role as a patient advocate.

If the family member wants to take notes, encourage them because that provides an awesome value.

Sometimes patients can forget clinic and hospital medical conversations, and that family member might be the key to improving your patient’s health.
 

No. 9: Follow-up with the patient

If your clinic has the capability, follow up with a patient the next day to make sure that they understood everything.

Check to make sure the patient was able to pick up all of the medications that you prescribed.

Check that laboratory tests are arranged or completed.

Check that important procedures, such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, and imaging, such as ultrasounds and CTs, are scheduled.
 

No. 10: Identify barriers to care

Have fun talking with a patient. Find out what they do for a living. Build a rapport. Listen to their stressors in life.

Try to identify any barriers to care or external stressors, like taking care of a sick parent, which might interfere with their scheduling an important diagnostic colonoscopy for rectal bleeding.

Good luck incorporating these communication strategies into your clinic and hospital work. Together, we can help improve the delivery of health care.
 

Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Dr. Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of colorectal cancer screening campaigns. Dr. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Here are 10 ways to improve health communication with patients. These tips will place patients at ease, increase their adherence to recommendations, and make the doctor’s visit a lot more enjoyable for them.
 

No. 1: Be an active listener

The first tip is to be an active listener and help guide the history-taking process by asking for clarification when needed.

Quickly figure out the patient’s chief complaint. Which symptom is the most severe?

Ask them for symptom-modifying factors, such as onset, duration, frequency, and a pain description. Is the abdominal pain sharp or crampy, dull and achy, or pressure-like? What makes the symptoms better or worse?

As many of us were taught in medical school, 80% of the diagnosis is in a patient’s history and description.
 

No. 2: Ask questions that resonate with patients

What can we do to help elicit an accurate history from the patient when they’re not providing the needed information or being helpful enough?

The easiest way is to ask your patient in a completely different way but one that resonates with them. For instance, ask how the abdominal pain is affecting their quality of life. That will help focus the history taking and encourage the patient to share details.

Does the pain keep them awake at night? Are they able to eat a normal-sized meal? Or are they forced to eat tiny snacks? Is the pain interfering with work or school?

By providing a framework, the patient will be more passionate about sharing the details of their history.
 

No. 3: Help patients organize their story

Sometimes, patients provide details in a nonchronological order, jumping all over the place.

A super helpful technique is to explain to the patient that you have a story to write for your computer note, and for them to think back to when they first started noticing their abdominal pain or rectal bleeding symptoms. When were the most-severe episodes? How frequent are the episodes? What’s the volume of their rectal bleeding?

If the patient realizes that you’re trying to write a story synopsis, they will provide information in a much more organized way.
 

No. 4: Determine patient’s language preference

Quickly determine the patient’s language preference. We want patients to feel extremely comfortable.

Whenever possible, use a certified interpreter. Language phone lines, in-person interpreters, and video conferencing are widely available today. It’s worth investing in this technology so that we can provide the best possible care to immigrants and refugees.

Conversely, avoid using family members as interpreters because they may not be adequately trained in medical vocabulary.
 

No. 5: Use simple language

When providing explanations, use simple language that your patient can understand and identify with.

For example, use analogies like “the heart is a pump” or the diverticula are thin areas of the colon that can bleed if the blood vessel is too close to the surface.
 

No. 6: Determine level of medical literacy

Determine your patient’s level of medical literacy. Some of our patients did not graduate from high school. Some patients can’t read very well. Therefore, your discharge instructions and handouts should sometimes be written on a third-grade level.

If patients can’t read, write medication instructions with symbols. Draw a sun for medications that are supposed to be taken in the morning and draw a moon if a medication is supposed to be taken at night.

Always very carefully review the instructions with the patient.
 

No. 7: Check in with the patient

During the visit, frequently check in with the patient to make sure that they understand what you’re asking or what you’re trying to explain to them.

No. 8: Include family member as patient advocate

If the patient is accompanied by a family member, help them serve in the important role as a patient advocate.

If the family member wants to take notes, encourage them because that provides an awesome value.

Sometimes patients can forget clinic and hospital medical conversations, and that family member might be the key to improving your patient’s health.
 

No. 9: Follow-up with the patient

If your clinic has the capability, follow up with a patient the next day to make sure that they understood everything.

Check to make sure the patient was able to pick up all of the medications that you prescribed.

Check that laboratory tests are arranged or completed.

Check that important procedures, such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, and imaging, such as ultrasounds and CTs, are scheduled.
 

No. 10: Identify barriers to care

Have fun talking with a patient. Find out what they do for a living. Build a rapport. Listen to their stressors in life.

Try to identify any barriers to care or external stressors, like taking care of a sick parent, which might interfere with their scheduling an important diagnostic colonoscopy for rectal bleeding.

Good luck incorporating these communication strategies into your clinic and hospital work. Together, we can help improve the delivery of health care.
 

Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Dr. Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of colorectal cancer screening campaigns. Dr. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Here are 10 ways to improve health communication with patients. These tips will place patients at ease, increase their adherence to recommendations, and make the doctor’s visit a lot more enjoyable for them.
 

No. 1: Be an active listener

The first tip is to be an active listener and help guide the history-taking process by asking for clarification when needed.

Quickly figure out the patient’s chief complaint. Which symptom is the most severe?

Ask them for symptom-modifying factors, such as onset, duration, frequency, and a pain description. Is the abdominal pain sharp or crampy, dull and achy, or pressure-like? What makes the symptoms better or worse?

As many of us were taught in medical school, 80% of the diagnosis is in a patient’s history and description.
 

No. 2: Ask questions that resonate with patients

What can we do to help elicit an accurate history from the patient when they’re not providing the needed information or being helpful enough?

The easiest way is to ask your patient in a completely different way but one that resonates with them. For instance, ask how the abdominal pain is affecting their quality of life. That will help focus the history taking and encourage the patient to share details.

Does the pain keep them awake at night? Are they able to eat a normal-sized meal? Or are they forced to eat tiny snacks? Is the pain interfering with work or school?

By providing a framework, the patient will be more passionate about sharing the details of their history.
 

No. 3: Help patients organize their story

Sometimes, patients provide details in a nonchronological order, jumping all over the place.

A super helpful technique is to explain to the patient that you have a story to write for your computer note, and for them to think back to when they first started noticing their abdominal pain or rectal bleeding symptoms. When were the most-severe episodes? How frequent are the episodes? What’s the volume of their rectal bleeding?

If the patient realizes that you’re trying to write a story synopsis, they will provide information in a much more organized way.
 

No. 4: Determine patient’s language preference

Quickly determine the patient’s language preference. We want patients to feel extremely comfortable.

Whenever possible, use a certified interpreter. Language phone lines, in-person interpreters, and video conferencing are widely available today. It’s worth investing in this technology so that we can provide the best possible care to immigrants and refugees.

Conversely, avoid using family members as interpreters because they may not be adequately trained in medical vocabulary.
 

No. 5: Use simple language

When providing explanations, use simple language that your patient can understand and identify with.

For example, use analogies like “the heart is a pump” or the diverticula are thin areas of the colon that can bleed if the blood vessel is too close to the surface.
 

No. 6: Determine level of medical literacy

Determine your patient’s level of medical literacy. Some of our patients did not graduate from high school. Some patients can’t read very well. Therefore, your discharge instructions and handouts should sometimes be written on a third-grade level.

If patients can’t read, write medication instructions with symbols. Draw a sun for medications that are supposed to be taken in the morning and draw a moon if a medication is supposed to be taken at night.

Always very carefully review the instructions with the patient.
 

No. 7: Check in with the patient

During the visit, frequently check in with the patient to make sure that they understand what you’re asking or what you’re trying to explain to them.

No. 8: Include family member as patient advocate

If the patient is accompanied by a family member, help them serve in the important role as a patient advocate.

If the family member wants to take notes, encourage them because that provides an awesome value.

Sometimes patients can forget clinic and hospital medical conversations, and that family member might be the key to improving your patient’s health.
 

No. 9: Follow-up with the patient

If your clinic has the capability, follow up with a patient the next day to make sure that they understood everything.

Check to make sure the patient was able to pick up all of the medications that you prescribed.

Check that laboratory tests are arranged or completed.

Check that important procedures, such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, and imaging, such as ultrasounds and CTs, are scheduled.
 

No. 10: Identify barriers to care

Have fun talking with a patient. Find out what they do for a living. Build a rapport. Listen to their stressors in life.

Try to identify any barriers to care or external stressors, like taking care of a sick parent, which might interfere with their scheduling an important diagnostic colonoscopy for rectal bleeding.

Good luck incorporating these communication strategies into your clinic and hospital work. Together, we can help improve the delivery of health care.
 

Dr. Levy is a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. In 2017, Dr. Levy, a previous Fulbright Fellow in France, also started a gastroenterology clinic for refugees resettling in Chicago. His clinical projects focus on the development of colorectal cancer screening campaigns. Dr. Levy, who recently gave a TEDx Talk about building health education campaigns using music and concerts, organizes Tune It Up: A Concert To Raise Colorectal Cancer Awareness with the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). He frequently publishes on a variety of gastroenterology topics and serves on ACG’s Public Relations Committee and FDA-Related Matters Committee. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Female sex, hyperlipidemia, Medicaid insurance, earlier year of biologic initiation, shorter duration of psoriasis, and prior nonbiologic systemic therapy use were associated with multiple biologic failure in patients with psoriasis, results from a prospective cohort demonstrated.

“Prior cross-sectional and single-center studies have primarily analyzed therapeutic failure of a single biologic or biologics within one class,” researchers led by Wilson Liao, MD, professor and vice chair of research in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “However, failure of multiple biologics targeting different signaling pathways is common over the course of treatment. These ‘multiple biologic failure’ patients are not well-characterized, and the patterns of biologics attempted and sociodemographic or clinical features that may predict difficult treatment are incompletely studied.”

To bridge this gap, the researchers conducted a prospective cohort study from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry, which collected data from dermatologist-diagnosed patients with psoriasis who started or switched to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved systemic therapy for psoriasis during routine dermatology visits from April 15, 2015, to May 10, 2022. This period included data from 17,196 patients across 259 private and 209 academic sites from 580 physicians in the United States and Canada.

From this registry, Dr. Liao and colleagues identified 1,039 patients with 24 months or more of follow-up data, a confirmed index biologic start date, and valid baseline assessment data, and categorized them into three cohorts:

• 490 (47.2%) with good response (GR), defined as patients with 24 months or more of continued index biologic use by the last registry visit.
• 65 (6.3%) with multiple biologic failure (MBF), defined as patients administered two or more biologic agents of different mechanistic classes who discontinued these biologics because of physician-reported “inadequate initial response,” “failure to maintain initial response,” or “active disease” despite 90 or more days of use per biologic.
• 484 (46.6%) categorized as “other,” defined as patients failed by one biologic or who discontinued treatment for nonmedical reasons.

The researchers used multivariable logistic regression to identify sociodemographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes that differed between the MBF and GR groups. The mean age of the patients in the study was 49.1 years, 44.2% were female, 77.9% were White, 9.7% were Hispanic, and the mean duration of psoriasis was 11.5 years.

On multivariable logistic regression, factors associated with MBF, compared with those with GR, included female at birth (odds ratio [OR] = 2.29; confidence interval [CI], 1.11-4.72), history of hyperlipidemia (OR = 3.14; CI, 1.35-7.30), Medicaid insurance (OR = 4.53; CI, 1.40-14.60), prior nonbiologic systemic therapy (OR = 2.47; CI, 1.16-5.25), higher psoriasis duration (OR = 0.60 per standard deviation [SD]; CI, 0.38-0.94), and later index biologic initiation (OR = 0.37 per year; CI, 0.27-0.52). Sensitivity analysis revealed that the duration of prior nonbiologic systemic therapy use was not associated with MBF (OR = 0.99; CI, 0.94-1.02; P = 0.56).

“Interestingly, health-related behaviors (e.g., smoking, alcohol use) and location/extent of psoriasis were not important differentiators between MBF and GR,” the authors noted. “We might suspect these features to correlate with MBF, as numerous observational studies found associations between health-related behaviors or psoriasis severity and presence at difficult-to-treat locations, which often relates to biologic use.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including underrepresentation of ethnoracial minorities and male sex at birth relative to reported psoriasis epidemiology, “possibly reflecting participation bias and reduced access to specialty care, given that patients were enrolled into the registry by dermatologists,” they wrote. “Patient adherence to prescribed biologic regimens between registry visits was not evaluated.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that despite the rapid expansion in biologic therapies for psoriasis, “analysis of real-world use patterns and patient characteristics has been limited – particularly for those who have failed multiple treatments. These findings suggest that there indeed may be some key differences between patients who have had to cycle through multiple biologics versus those who have had a sustained satisfactory response on a single therapy, such as disease duration and previous nonbiologic treatments.”

Dr. Chovatiya

Female sex, hyperlipidemia, Medicaid insurance, earlier year of biologic initiation, shorter duration of psoriasis, and prior nonbiologic systemic therapy use were associated with multiple biologic failure in patients with psoriasis, results from a prospective cohort demonstrated.

“Prior cross-sectional and single-center studies have primarily analyzed therapeutic failure of a single biologic or biologics within one class,” researchers led by Wilson Liao, MD, professor and vice chair of research in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “However, failure of multiple biologics targeting different signaling pathways is common over the course of treatment. These ‘multiple biologic failure’ patients are not well-characterized, and the patterns of biologics attempted and sociodemographic or clinical features that may predict difficult treatment are incompletely studied.”

To bridge this gap, the researchers conducted a prospective cohort study from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry, which collected data from dermatologist-diagnosed patients with psoriasis who started or switched to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved systemic therapy for psoriasis during routine dermatology visits from April 15, 2015, to May 10, 2022. This period included data from 17,196 patients across 259 private and 209 academic sites from 580 physicians in the United States and Canada.

From this registry, Dr. Liao and colleagues identified 1,039 patients with 24 months or more of follow-up data, a confirmed index biologic start date, and valid baseline assessment data, and categorized them into three cohorts:

• 490 (47.2%) with good response (GR), defined as patients with 24 months or more of continued index biologic use by the last registry visit.
• 65 (6.3%) with multiple biologic failure (MBF), defined as patients administered two or more biologic agents of different mechanistic classes who discontinued these biologics because of physician-reported “inadequate initial response,” “failure to maintain initial response,” or “active disease” despite 90 or more days of use per biologic.
• 484 (46.6%) categorized as “other,” defined as patients failed by one biologic or who discontinued treatment for nonmedical reasons.

The researchers used multivariable logistic regression to identify sociodemographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes that differed between the MBF and GR groups. The mean age of the patients in the study was 49.1 years, 44.2% were female, 77.9% were White, 9.7% were Hispanic, and the mean duration of psoriasis was 11.5 years.

On multivariable logistic regression, factors associated with MBF, compared with those with GR, included female at birth (odds ratio [OR] = 2.29; confidence interval [CI], 1.11-4.72), history of hyperlipidemia (OR = 3.14; CI, 1.35-7.30), Medicaid insurance (OR = 4.53; CI, 1.40-14.60), prior nonbiologic systemic therapy (OR = 2.47; CI, 1.16-5.25), higher psoriasis duration (OR = 0.60 per standard deviation [SD]; CI, 0.38-0.94), and later index biologic initiation (OR = 0.37 per year; CI, 0.27-0.52). Sensitivity analysis revealed that the duration of prior nonbiologic systemic therapy use was not associated with MBF (OR = 0.99; CI, 0.94-1.02; P = 0.56).

“Interestingly, health-related behaviors (e.g., smoking, alcohol use) and location/extent of psoriasis were not important differentiators between MBF and GR,” the authors noted. “We might suspect these features to correlate with MBF, as numerous observational studies found associations between health-related behaviors or psoriasis severity and presence at difficult-to-treat locations, which often relates to biologic use.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including underrepresentation of ethnoracial minorities and male sex at birth relative to reported psoriasis epidemiology, “possibly reflecting participation bias and reduced access to specialty care, given that patients were enrolled into the registry by dermatologists,” they wrote. “Patient adherence to prescribed biologic regimens between registry visits was not evaluated.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that despite the rapid expansion in biologic therapies for psoriasis, “analysis of real-world use patterns and patient characteristics has been limited – particularly for those who have failed multiple treatments. These findings suggest that there indeed may be some key differences between patients who have had to cycle through multiple biologics versus those who have had a sustained satisfactory response on a single therapy, such as disease duration and previous nonbiologic treatments.”

Dr. Chovatiya

Female sex, hyperlipidemia, Medicaid insurance, earlier year of biologic initiation, shorter duration of psoriasis, and prior nonbiologic systemic therapy use were associated with multiple biologic failure in patients with psoriasis, results from a prospective cohort demonstrated.

“Prior cross-sectional and single-center studies have primarily analyzed therapeutic failure of a single biologic or biologics within one class,” researchers led by Wilson Liao, MD, professor and vice chair of research in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “However, failure of multiple biologics targeting different signaling pathways is common over the course of treatment. These ‘multiple biologic failure’ patients are not well-characterized, and the patterns of biologics attempted and sociodemographic or clinical features that may predict difficult treatment are incompletely studied.”

To bridge this gap, the researchers conducted a prospective cohort study from the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry, which collected data from dermatologist-diagnosed patients with psoriasis who started or switched to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved systemic therapy for psoriasis during routine dermatology visits from April 15, 2015, to May 10, 2022. This period included data from 17,196 patients across 259 private and 209 academic sites from 580 physicians in the United States and Canada.

From this registry, Dr. Liao and colleagues identified 1,039 patients with 24 months or more of follow-up data, a confirmed index biologic start date, and valid baseline assessment data, and categorized them into three cohorts:

• 490 (47.2%) with good response (GR), defined as patients with 24 months or more of continued index biologic use by the last registry visit.
• 65 (6.3%) with multiple biologic failure (MBF), defined as patients administered two or more biologic agents of different mechanistic classes who discontinued these biologics because of physician-reported “inadequate initial response,” “failure to maintain initial response,” or “active disease” despite 90 or more days of use per biologic.
• 484 (46.6%) categorized as “other,” defined as patients failed by one biologic or who discontinued treatment for nonmedical reasons.

The researchers used multivariable logistic regression to identify sociodemographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes that differed between the MBF and GR groups. The mean age of the patients in the study was 49.1 years, 44.2% were female, 77.9% were White, 9.7% were Hispanic, and the mean duration of psoriasis was 11.5 years.

On multivariable logistic regression, factors associated with MBF, compared with those with GR, included female at birth (odds ratio [OR] = 2.29; confidence interval [CI], 1.11-4.72), history of hyperlipidemia (OR = 3.14; CI, 1.35-7.30), Medicaid insurance (OR = 4.53; CI, 1.40-14.60), prior nonbiologic systemic therapy (OR = 2.47; CI, 1.16-5.25), higher psoriasis duration (OR = 0.60 per standard deviation [SD]; CI, 0.38-0.94), and later index biologic initiation (OR = 0.37 per year; CI, 0.27-0.52). Sensitivity analysis revealed that the duration of prior nonbiologic systemic therapy use was not associated with MBF (OR = 0.99; CI, 0.94-1.02; P = 0.56).

“Interestingly, health-related behaviors (e.g., smoking, alcohol use) and location/extent of psoriasis were not important differentiators between MBF and GR,” the authors noted. “We might suspect these features to correlate with MBF, as numerous observational studies found associations between health-related behaviors or psoriasis severity and presence at difficult-to-treat locations, which often relates to biologic use.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including underrepresentation of ethnoracial minorities and male sex at birth relative to reported psoriasis epidemiology, “possibly reflecting participation bias and reduced access to specialty care, given that patients were enrolled into the registry by dermatologists,” they wrote. “Patient adherence to prescribed biologic regimens between registry visits was not evaluated.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that despite the rapid expansion in biologic therapies for psoriasis, “analysis of real-world use patterns and patient characteristics has been limited – particularly for those who have failed multiple treatments. These findings suggest that there indeed may be some key differences between patients who have had to cycle through multiple biologics versus those who have had a sustained satisfactory response on a single therapy, such as disease duration and previous nonbiologic treatments.”

Dr. Chovatiya

Outsourcing certain staff functions in a practice to outside contractors working in remote locations has become commonplace in many medical practices.

Health care outsourcing services, also known as virtual assistants (VAs), were already booming in 2017, when volume grew by 36%. Then, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 normalized off-site work, which was a boon to outsourcing providers.

The most popular services being outsourced today by medical practices include billing, scribes, telephone calls to patients, and processing prior authorizations.

“Outsourcing is not for everyone, but I’ve seen it work for many practices,” said Lara Hochman, MD, a practice management consultant in Austin, Tex. She said that practices have used outsourcing to solve problems like high staff turnover, tight budgets, and inefficient use of staff.

When in-house staffing is insufficient or not appropriately aligned with the task, outsourcing can produce big savings, said Teri Deabler, a practice management consultant with the Texas Medical Association.

For example, she said that a client was paying an in-house accountant $80,000 a year. When the accountant retired, she was replaced with a part-time bookkeeper earning $20,000 while her accounting work was outsourced at a cost of $20,000 a year. “The practice’s costs for this service were cut in half,” Ms. Deabler said.
 

What functions lend themselves to outsourcing?

Clinical services are rarely outsourced by individual practices – although hospitals now outsource numerous clinical services – but virtually any kind of administrative service can be contracted out. Outsourcing used to be limited mainly to billing and off-hours phone services, but today, more services are available, such as scribing, processing prior authorizations, accounting and bookkeeping, human resources (HR) and payroll, interactions with social media, recredentialing, medical transcription, and marketing.

Meanwhile, the original outsourced services have evolved. Billing and collections may now be handled by off-shore VAs, and phone services now deal with a wider variety of tasks, such as answering patients’ questions, scheduling appointments, and making referrals.

Ron Holder, chief operating officer of Medical Group Management Association in Englewood, Colo., said that some outsourcing services can also adjust the amount of work provided based on the customer’s needs. “For instance, an IT outsourcer may allow you to scale up IT support for a new big tech project, such as installing a new electronic health record,” he said.

The outsourced service provider, who might work in another state or another country, is connected to the practice by phone and electronically, and represents the practice when dealing with patients, insurers, or other vendors.

“No one, including patients and your physicians, should know that they are dealing with an outsourced company,” said Mr. Holder. “The work, look, and feel of the outsourced functions should be seamless. Employees at the outsourcer should always identify themselves as the practice, not the outsourcing service.”

Dr. Hochman said that many outsourcing companies dedicate a particular worker to a particular practice and train them to work there. One example of this approach is Provider’s Choice Scribe Services, based in San Antonio. On its website, the company notes that each scribe is paired with a doctor and learns his or her documentation preferences, EMR use, and charting requirements.
 

What medical practices benefit most from outsourcing?

All kinds and sizes of practices contract with outsourcing firms, but the arrangement is particularly useful for smaller practices, Mr. Holder said. “Larger practices have the economies of scale that allow services to be in-house,” he said, “but smaller practices don’t have that opportunity.”

Dr. Hochman added that outsourcing firms can be hired part-time when the practice doesn’t have enough work for a full-time position. Alternatively, a full-time outsourcing firm can perform two or more separate tasks, such as scribing while handling prior authorizations, she said.

Outsourcing is also useful for new practices, Ms. Deabler said. “A new practice is not earning much money, so it has to have a bare-bones staff,” she said. “Billing, for example, should be contracted out, but it won’t cost that much, because the outsourcer typically charges by volume, and the volume in a new practice is low.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Holder said that the outsourcing of prior authorization work can particularly benefit specialty practices because they typically have a lot of prior authorizations to deal with.
 

The pros and cons of outsourcing

Experts with experience in outsourcing agree there are both pluses and minuses. “Practices with outsourced workers have less overhead, don’t have to deal with staff turnover, and costs may be lower than for in-house staff,” Ms. Deabler said. “However, you have limited control over outsourced workers and the practice may seem more anonymous to patients, so you need to consider this option very carefully.”

“With outsourcing, you lose control,” said John Machata, MD, a recently retired solo family physician in Wickford, R.I. “You’re trusting someone else to do work that you could do anyway.”

When he briefly considered outsourcing the practice’s billing many years ago, he found that billing companies wouldn’t handle bills that took a lot of work, such as getting in touch with the insurance company and explaining the patient’s situation. “They would only handle the easy bills, which the practice could do anyway,” he said.

However, he does think that answering services may be useful to outsource. “Patients are more inclined to call an anonymous entity than the doctor,” he said. When he gave patients his cell phone number, he said that some patients held off from calling because they didn’t want to bother him.

“Outsourced staff should be less expensive than in-house staff,” said Daniel Shay, an attorney at Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “On the other hand, you are liable for the outsourcer’s mistakes. If your outsourced billing company is upcoding claims, your practice would be on the hook for repayment and penalties.”

Mr. Holder said: “An outsourcer ought to be more efficient at its chosen task because that is what they know how to do. This is a plus at a small practice, where the practice manager may need to do the billing, HR, IT, marketing, some legal work, and accounting,” he said. “No one person can do all of those things well.”

He added, however, “If you choose outsourcing and then decide you don’t like it, it’s difficult to unwind the arrangement. Staff that have been dismissed can’t easily be hired back, so it shouldn’t be an easy decision to make.”

Also, sometimes the staff at offshore outsourcing firms may have accents that are harder for patients to understand, and the offshore staff may not readily understand a U.S. caller. However, Dr. Hochman said that practices often have a chance to interview and select specific persons on the offshore team who best fit their needs.
 

Offshore outsourcing

Outsourcing firms have been moving abroad, where costs are lower. Typical venues are India and the Philippines because there are larger percentages of people who speak English. Since 2020, demand at offshore medical billing companies has been growing faster than their domestic counterparts, according to a recent analysis.

The difference in price can be substantial. In 2020, the average salary for scribes in India was $500 a month, compared with $2,500 for scribes in the United States.

However, offshore outsourcing is starting to face limitations in some places because of privacy issues, according to David J. Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa. He pointed to a new Florida law that limits use of offshore vendors because they deal with confidential patient information. The law, which became effective July 1, requires that any protected health information must be maintained in the United States or Canada.

“This will make it very hard for many types of offshore vendors to operate in Florida,” he said. He noted that Florida is the only state with such a restriction, but similar proposals are under consideration in a few other states, such as Texas.
 

How to select the right company

Mr. Zetter said that the biggest mistake practices make when choosing a company is failing to take enough time to examine their choice. “Quite often, practices don’t validate that companies know what they are doing,” he said. “They get a recommendation and go with it.”

“Choose a company with experience in your specialty,” Mr. Zetter advised. “Speak with the company’s clients, not just the ones the company gives you to speak to. You should ask for the full list of clients and speak to all of them.”

Ms. Deabler said that it’s fairly easy to find respected outsourcing companies. “Colleagues can make recommendations, state and specialty societies can provide lists of preferred vendors, and you can visit vendors’ booths at medical conferences,” she said. She added that it’s also easy to find evaluations of each company. “You can Google the company and come up with all kinds of information about it,” she said.

Mr. Shay said that practices should make sure they understand the terms of the contract with a VA. “Depending on how the contract is worded, you may be stuck with the relationship for many years,” he said. “Before you sign an outsourcing contract, you need to make sure it has a reasonable termination provision.”

Because vetting companies properly can require extensive work, Ms. Deabler said, the work can be given to an experienced practice management consultant. “The consultant can start with a cost-benefit analysis that will show you whether outsourcing would be worthwhile,” she said.
 

Working with outsource service providers

Mr. Holder said that doctors should keep track of what the outsourcer is doing rather than simply let them do their work. “For example, doctors should understand the billing codes they use most often, such as the five levels of evaluation and management codes, and not just blindly rely on the billing company to code and bill their work correctly,” he noted.

Ms. Deabler said that companies provide monthly reports on their work. “Doctors should be reading these reports and contacting the company if expectations aren’t met,” she said.

Even in the reports, companies can hide problems from untrained eyes, Mr. Holder said. “For example, anyone can meet a metric like days in accounts receivable simply by writing off any charge that isn’t paid after 90 days.”

“You need to be engaged with the outsourcer,” he said. “It’s also a good idea to bring in a consultant to periodically check an outsourcer’s work.”
 

Will outsourcing expand in the future?

Mr. Holder said that the increasing use of value-based care may require practices to rely more on outsourcing in the future. “For instance, if a practice has a value-based contract that requires providing behavioral health services to patients, it might make sense to outsource that work rather than hire psychologists in-house,” he said.

Practices rarely outsource clinical services, but Mr. Holder said that this may happen in the future: “Now that Medicare is paying less for telehealth, practices have to find a way to provide it without using expensive examining room space,” he said. “Some practices may decide to outsource telehealth instead.”

Mr. Shay said that there are many reasons why outsourcing has a strong future. “It allows you to concentrate on your clinical care, and it is a solution to problems with turnover of in-house staff,” he said. “It can also be more efficient because the service is presumably an expert in areas like billing and collections, which means it may be able to ensure more efficient and faster reimbursements. And if the work is outsourced overseas, you can save money through lower worker salaries.”

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

Outsourcing certain staff functions in a practice to outside contractors working in remote locations has become commonplace in many medical practices.

Health care outsourcing services, also known as virtual assistants (VAs), were already booming in 2017, when volume grew by 36%. Then, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 normalized off-site work, which was a boon to outsourcing providers.

The most popular services being outsourced today by medical practices include billing, scribes, telephone calls to patients, and processing prior authorizations.

“Outsourcing is not for everyone, but I’ve seen it work for many practices,” said Lara Hochman, MD, a practice management consultant in Austin, Tex. She said that practices have used outsourcing to solve problems like high staff turnover, tight budgets, and inefficient use of staff.

When in-house staffing is insufficient or not appropriately aligned with the task, outsourcing can produce big savings, said Teri Deabler, a practice management consultant with the Texas Medical Association.

For example, she said that a client was paying an in-house accountant $80,000 a year. When the accountant retired, she was replaced with a part-time bookkeeper earning $20,000 while her accounting work was outsourced at a cost of $20,000 a year. “The practice’s costs for this service were cut in half,” Ms. Deabler said.
 

What functions lend themselves to outsourcing?

Clinical services are rarely outsourced by individual practices – although hospitals now outsource numerous clinical services – but virtually any kind of administrative service can be contracted out. Outsourcing used to be limited mainly to billing and off-hours phone services, but today, more services are available, such as scribing, processing prior authorizations, accounting and bookkeeping, human resources (HR) and payroll, interactions with social media, recredentialing, medical transcription, and marketing.

Meanwhile, the original outsourced services have evolved. Billing and collections may now be handled by off-shore VAs, and phone services now deal with a wider variety of tasks, such as answering patients’ questions, scheduling appointments, and making referrals.

Ron Holder, chief operating officer of Medical Group Management Association in Englewood, Colo., said that some outsourcing services can also adjust the amount of work provided based on the customer’s needs. “For instance, an IT outsourcer may allow you to scale up IT support for a new big tech project, such as installing a new electronic health record,” he said.

The outsourced service provider, who might work in another state or another country, is connected to the practice by phone and electronically, and represents the practice when dealing with patients, insurers, or other vendors.

“No one, including patients and your physicians, should know that they are dealing with an outsourced company,” said Mr. Holder. “The work, look, and feel of the outsourced functions should be seamless. Employees at the outsourcer should always identify themselves as the practice, not the outsourcing service.”

Dr. Hochman said that many outsourcing companies dedicate a particular worker to a particular practice and train them to work there. One example of this approach is Provider’s Choice Scribe Services, based in San Antonio. On its website, the company notes that each scribe is paired with a doctor and learns his or her documentation preferences, EMR use, and charting requirements.
 

What medical practices benefit most from outsourcing?

All kinds and sizes of practices contract with outsourcing firms, but the arrangement is particularly useful for smaller practices, Mr. Holder said. “Larger practices have the economies of scale that allow services to be in-house,” he said, “but smaller practices don’t have that opportunity.”

Dr. Hochman added that outsourcing firms can be hired part-time when the practice doesn’t have enough work for a full-time position. Alternatively, a full-time outsourcing firm can perform two or more separate tasks, such as scribing while handling prior authorizations, she said.

Outsourcing is also useful for new practices, Ms. Deabler said. “A new practice is not earning much money, so it has to have a bare-bones staff,” she said. “Billing, for example, should be contracted out, but it won’t cost that much, because the outsourcer typically charges by volume, and the volume in a new practice is low.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Holder said that the outsourcing of prior authorization work can particularly benefit specialty practices because they typically have a lot of prior authorizations to deal with.
 

The pros and cons of outsourcing

Experts with experience in outsourcing agree there are both pluses and minuses. “Practices with outsourced workers have less overhead, don’t have to deal with staff turnover, and costs may be lower than for in-house staff,” Ms. Deabler said. “However, you have limited control over outsourced workers and the practice may seem more anonymous to patients, so you need to consider this option very carefully.”

“With outsourcing, you lose control,” said John Machata, MD, a recently retired solo family physician in Wickford, R.I. “You’re trusting someone else to do work that you could do anyway.”

When he briefly considered outsourcing the practice’s billing many years ago, he found that billing companies wouldn’t handle bills that took a lot of work, such as getting in touch with the insurance company and explaining the patient’s situation. “They would only handle the easy bills, which the practice could do anyway,” he said.

However, he does think that answering services may be useful to outsource. “Patients are more inclined to call an anonymous entity than the doctor,” he said. When he gave patients his cell phone number, he said that some patients held off from calling because they didn’t want to bother him.

“Outsourced staff should be less expensive than in-house staff,” said Daniel Shay, an attorney at Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “On the other hand, you are liable for the outsourcer’s mistakes. If your outsourced billing company is upcoding claims, your practice would be on the hook for repayment and penalties.”

Mr. Holder said: “An outsourcer ought to be more efficient at its chosen task because that is what they know how to do. This is a plus at a small practice, where the practice manager may need to do the billing, HR, IT, marketing, some legal work, and accounting,” he said. “No one person can do all of those things well.”

He added, however, “If you choose outsourcing and then decide you don’t like it, it’s difficult to unwind the arrangement. Staff that have been dismissed can’t easily be hired back, so it shouldn’t be an easy decision to make.”

Also, sometimes the staff at offshore outsourcing firms may have accents that are harder for patients to understand, and the offshore staff may not readily understand a U.S. caller. However, Dr. Hochman said that practices often have a chance to interview and select specific persons on the offshore team who best fit their needs.
 

Offshore outsourcing

Outsourcing firms have been moving abroad, where costs are lower. Typical venues are India and the Philippines because there are larger percentages of people who speak English. Since 2020, demand at offshore medical billing companies has been growing faster than their domestic counterparts, according to a recent analysis.

The difference in price can be substantial. In 2020, the average salary for scribes in India was $500 a month, compared with $2,500 for scribes in the United States.

However, offshore outsourcing is starting to face limitations in some places because of privacy issues, according to David J. Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa. He pointed to a new Florida law that limits use of offshore vendors because they deal with confidential patient information. The law, which became effective July 1, requires that any protected health information must be maintained in the United States or Canada.

“This will make it very hard for many types of offshore vendors to operate in Florida,” he said. He noted that Florida is the only state with such a restriction, but similar proposals are under consideration in a few other states, such as Texas.
 

How to select the right company

Mr. Zetter said that the biggest mistake practices make when choosing a company is failing to take enough time to examine their choice. “Quite often, practices don’t validate that companies know what they are doing,” he said. “They get a recommendation and go with it.”

“Choose a company with experience in your specialty,” Mr. Zetter advised. “Speak with the company’s clients, not just the ones the company gives you to speak to. You should ask for the full list of clients and speak to all of them.”

Ms. Deabler said that it’s fairly easy to find respected outsourcing companies. “Colleagues can make recommendations, state and specialty societies can provide lists of preferred vendors, and you can visit vendors’ booths at medical conferences,” she said. She added that it’s also easy to find evaluations of each company. “You can Google the company and come up with all kinds of information about it,” she said.

Mr. Shay said that practices should make sure they understand the terms of the contract with a VA. “Depending on how the contract is worded, you may be stuck with the relationship for many years,” he said. “Before you sign an outsourcing contract, you need to make sure it has a reasonable termination provision.”

Because vetting companies properly can require extensive work, Ms. Deabler said, the work can be given to an experienced practice management consultant. “The consultant can start with a cost-benefit analysis that will show you whether outsourcing would be worthwhile,” she said.
 

Working with outsource service providers

Mr. Holder said that doctors should keep track of what the outsourcer is doing rather than simply let them do their work. “For example, doctors should understand the billing codes they use most often, such as the five levels of evaluation and management codes, and not just blindly rely on the billing company to code and bill their work correctly,” he noted.

Ms. Deabler said that companies provide monthly reports on their work. “Doctors should be reading these reports and contacting the company if expectations aren’t met,” she said.

Even in the reports, companies can hide problems from untrained eyes, Mr. Holder said. “For example, anyone can meet a metric like days in accounts receivable simply by writing off any charge that isn’t paid after 90 days.”

“You need to be engaged with the outsourcer,” he said. “It’s also a good idea to bring in a consultant to periodically check an outsourcer’s work.”
 

Will outsourcing expand in the future?

Mr. Holder said that the increasing use of value-based care may require practices to rely more on outsourcing in the future. “For instance, if a practice has a value-based contract that requires providing behavioral health services to patients, it might make sense to outsource that work rather than hire psychologists in-house,” he said.

Practices rarely outsource clinical services, but Mr. Holder said that this may happen in the future: “Now that Medicare is paying less for telehealth, practices have to find a way to provide it without using expensive examining room space,” he said. “Some practices may decide to outsource telehealth instead.”

Mr. Shay said that there are many reasons why outsourcing has a strong future. “It allows you to concentrate on your clinical care, and it is a solution to problems with turnover of in-house staff,” he said. “It can also be more efficient because the service is presumably an expert in areas like billing and collections, which means it may be able to ensure more efficient and faster reimbursements. And if the work is outsourced overseas, you can save money through lower worker salaries.”

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

Outsourcing certain staff functions in a practice to outside contractors working in remote locations has become commonplace in many medical practices.

Health care outsourcing services, also known as virtual assistants (VAs), were already booming in 2017, when volume grew by 36%. Then, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 normalized off-site work, which was a boon to outsourcing providers.

The most popular services being outsourced today by medical practices include billing, scribes, telephone calls to patients, and processing prior authorizations.

“Outsourcing is not for everyone, but I’ve seen it work for many practices,” said Lara Hochman, MD, a practice management consultant in Austin, Tex. She said that practices have used outsourcing to solve problems like high staff turnover, tight budgets, and inefficient use of staff.

When in-house staffing is insufficient or not appropriately aligned with the task, outsourcing can produce big savings, said Teri Deabler, a practice management consultant with the Texas Medical Association.

For example, she said that a client was paying an in-house accountant $80,000 a year. When the accountant retired, she was replaced with a part-time bookkeeper earning $20,000 while her accounting work was outsourced at a cost of $20,000 a year. “The practice’s costs for this service were cut in half,” Ms. Deabler said.
 

What functions lend themselves to outsourcing?

Clinical services are rarely outsourced by individual practices – although hospitals now outsource numerous clinical services – but virtually any kind of administrative service can be contracted out. Outsourcing used to be limited mainly to billing and off-hours phone services, but today, more services are available, such as scribing, processing prior authorizations, accounting and bookkeeping, human resources (HR) and payroll, interactions with social media, recredentialing, medical transcription, and marketing.

Meanwhile, the original outsourced services have evolved. Billing and collections may now be handled by off-shore VAs, and phone services now deal with a wider variety of tasks, such as answering patients’ questions, scheduling appointments, and making referrals.

Ron Holder, chief operating officer of Medical Group Management Association in Englewood, Colo., said that some outsourcing services can also adjust the amount of work provided based on the customer’s needs. “For instance, an IT outsourcer may allow you to scale up IT support for a new big tech project, such as installing a new electronic health record,” he said.

The outsourced service provider, who might work in another state or another country, is connected to the practice by phone and electronically, and represents the practice when dealing with patients, insurers, or other vendors.

“No one, including patients and your physicians, should know that they are dealing with an outsourced company,” said Mr. Holder. “The work, look, and feel of the outsourced functions should be seamless. Employees at the outsourcer should always identify themselves as the practice, not the outsourcing service.”

Dr. Hochman said that many outsourcing companies dedicate a particular worker to a particular practice and train them to work there. One example of this approach is Provider’s Choice Scribe Services, based in San Antonio. On its website, the company notes that each scribe is paired with a doctor and learns his or her documentation preferences, EMR use, and charting requirements.
 

What medical practices benefit most from outsourcing?

All kinds and sizes of practices contract with outsourcing firms, but the arrangement is particularly useful for smaller practices, Mr. Holder said. “Larger practices have the economies of scale that allow services to be in-house,” he said, “but smaller practices don’t have that opportunity.”

Dr. Hochman added that outsourcing firms can be hired part-time when the practice doesn’t have enough work for a full-time position. Alternatively, a full-time outsourcing firm can perform two or more separate tasks, such as scribing while handling prior authorizations, she said.

Outsourcing is also useful for new practices, Ms. Deabler said. “A new practice is not earning much money, so it has to have a bare-bones staff,” she said. “Billing, for example, should be contracted out, but it won’t cost that much, because the outsourcer typically charges by volume, and the volume in a new practice is low.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Holder said that the outsourcing of prior authorization work can particularly benefit specialty practices because they typically have a lot of prior authorizations to deal with.
 

The pros and cons of outsourcing

Experts with experience in outsourcing agree there are both pluses and minuses. “Practices with outsourced workers have less overhead, don’t have to deal with staff turnover, and costs may be lower than for in-house staff,” Ms. Deabler said. “However, you have limited control over outsourced workers and the practice may seem more anonymous to patients, so you need to consider this option very carefully.”

“With outsourcing, you lose control,” said John Machata, MD, a recently retired solo family physician in Wickford, R.I. “You’re trusting someone else to do work that you could do anyway.”

When he briefly considered outsourcing the practice’s billing many years ago, he found that billing companies wouldn’t handle bills that took a lot of work, such as getting in touch with the insurance company and explaining the patient’s situation. “They would only handle the easy bills, which the practice could do anyway,” he said.

However, he does think that answering services may be useful to outsource. “Patients are more inclined to call an anonymous entity than the doctor,” he said. When he gave patients his cell phone number, he said that some patients held off from calling because they didn’t want to bother him.

“Outsourced staff should be less expensive than in-house staff,” said Daniel Shay, an attorney at Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “On the other hand, you are liable for the outsourcer’s mistakes. If your outsourced billing company is upcoding claims, your practice would be on the hook for repayment and penalties.”

Mr. Holder said: “An outsourcer ought to be more efficient at its chosen task because that is what they know how to do. This is a plus at a small practice, where the practice manager may need to do the billing, HR, IT, marketing, some legal work, and accounting,” he said. “No one person can do all of those things well.”

He added, however, “If you choose outsourcing and then decide you don’t like it, it’s difficult to unwind the arrangement. Staff that have been dismissed can’t easily be hired back, so it shouldn’t be an easy decision to make.”

Also, sometimes the staff at offshore outsourcing firms may have accents that are harder for patients to understand, and the offshore staff may not readily understand a U.S. caller. However, Dr. Hochman said that practices often have a chance to interview and select specific persons on the offshore team who best fit their needs.
 

Offshore outsourcing

Outsourcing firms have been moving abroad, where costs are lower. Typical venues are India and the Philippines because there are larger percentages of people who speak English. Since 2020, demand at offshore medical billing companies has been growing faster than their domestic counterparts, according to a recent analysis.

The difference in price can be substantial. In 2020, the average salary for scribes in India was $500 a month, compared with $2,500 for scribes in the United States.

However, offshore outsourcing is starting to face limitations in some places because of privacy issues, according to David J. Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa. He pointed to a new Florida law that limits use of offshore vendors because they deal with confidential patient information. The law, which became effective July 1, requires that any protected health information must be maintained in the United States or Canada.

“This will make it very hard for many types of offshore vendors to operate in Florida,” he said. He noted that Florida is the only state with such a restriction, but similar proposals are under consideration in a few other states, such as Texas.
 

How to select the right company

Mr. Zetter said that the biggest mistake practices make when choosing a company is failing to take enough time to examine their choice. “Quite often, practices don’t validate that companies know what they are doing,” he said. “They get a recommendation and go with it.”

“Choose a company with experience in your specialty,” Mr. Zetter advised. “Speak with the company’s clients, not just the ones the company gives you to speak to. You should ask for the full list of clients and speak to all of them.”

Ms. Deabler said that it’s fairly easy to find respected outsourcing companies. “Colleagues can make recommendations, state and specialty societies can provide lists of preferred vendors, and you can visit vendors’ booths at medical conferences,” she said. She added that it’s also easy to find evaluations of each company. “You can Google the company and come up with all kinds of information about it,” she said.

Mr. Shay said that practices should make sure they understand the terms of the contract with a VA. “Depending on how the contract is worded, you may be stuck with the relationship for many years,” he said. “Before you sign an outsourcing contract, you need to make sure it has a reasonable termination provision.”

Because vetting companies properly can require extensive work, Ms. Deabler said, the work can be given to an experienced practice management consultant. “The consultant can start with a cost-benefit analysis that will show you whether outsourcing would be worthwhile,” she said.
 

Working with outsource service providers

Mr. Holder said that doctors should keep track of what the outsourcer is doing rather than simply let them do their work. “For example, doctors should understand the billing codes they use most often, such as the five levels of evaluation and management codes, and not just blindly rely on the billing company to code and bill their work correctly,” he noted.

Ms. Deabler said that companies provide monthly reports on their work. “Doctors should be reading these reports and contacting the company if expectations aren’t met,” she said.

Even in the reports, companies can hide problems from untrained eyes, Mr. Holder said. “For example, anyone can meet a metric like days in accounts receivable simply by writing off any charge that isn’t paid after 90 days.”

“You need to be engaged with the outsourcer,” he said. “It’s also a good idea to bring in a consultant to periodically check an outsourcer’s work.”
 

Will outsourcing expand in the future?

Mr. Holder said that the increasing use of value-based care may require practices to rely more on outsourcing in the future. “For instance, if a practice has a value-based contract that requires providing behavioral health services to patients, it might make sense to outsource that work rather than hire psychologists in-house,” he said.

Practices rarely outsource clinical services, but Mr. Holder said that this may happen in the future: “Now that Medicare is paying less for telehealth, practices have to find a way to provide it without using expensive examining room space,” he said. “Some practices may decide to outsource telehealth instead.”

Mr. Shay said that there are many reasons why outsourcing has a strong future. “It allows you to concentrate on your clinical care, and it is a solution to problems with turnover of in-house staff,” he said. “It can also be more efficient because the service is presumably an expert in areas like billing and collections, which means it may be able to ensure more efficient and faster reimbursements. And if the work is outsourced overseas, you can save money through lower worker salaries.”

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

Enrollment is opening for four clinical trials that will evaluate new treatments for long COVID, the National Institutes of Health announced at a media briefing today. Additional clinical trials to test at least seven more treatments are expected to launch in the coming months, officials said.

The trials are part of the NIH’s research effort known as the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative. In December 2020, Congress approved $1.15 billion for the NIH to research and test treatments for long COVID. The new clinical trials are in phase 2 and will test safety and effectiveness.

“The condition affects nearly all body systems and presents with more than 200 symptoms,” said Walter J. Koroshetz, MD, director of the NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and colead of the RECOVER Initiative. How many people have long COVID is uncertain, he told attendees at the briefing. “The answer kind of depends on how you define the problem and also what variant caused it. The incidence was higher in Delta.” Some estimates suggest that 5%-10% of those infected develop long COVID. “I don’t think we have solid numbers, as it’s a moving target,” Dr. Koroshetz said.

Patients with long COVID have grown increasingly frustrated at the lack of effective treatments. Some doctors have turned to off-label use of some drugs to treat them.

The four trials include the following:

• RECOVER-VITAL will focus on a treatment for viral persistence, which can occur if the virus lingers and causes the immune system to not work properly. One treatment will test a longer dose regimen of the antiviral Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir), which is currently used to treat mild to moderate COVID to halt progression to severe COVID.
• RECOVER-NEURO will target treatments for symptoms such as brain fog, memory problems, and attention challenges. Among the potential treatments are a program called BrainHQ, which provides Web-based training, and PASC-Cognitive Recovery (post-acute sequelae of COVID), a Web-based program developed by Mount Sinai Health System in New York. Also being tested is a direct current stimulation program to improve brain activity.
• RECOVER-SLEEP will evaluate treatments for sleep problems, which can include daytime sleepiness and other problems. According to Dr. Koroshetz, melatonin, light therapy, and an educational coaching system are among the treatments that will be studied.
• RECOVER-AUTONOMIC will evaluate treatments to address symptoms linked with problems of the autonomic nervous system. The first trial will target postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which can include irregular heartbeat, fatigue, and dizziness. A treatment for immune disease and a drug currently used to treat chronic heart failure will be tested.

Timelines

The first trial, on viral persistence, has launched, said Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, a principal investigator at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the clinical trials data coordinating center for the trials. “We are actively working to launch the second on cognitive dysfunction.” The sleep and autonomic trials will launch in the coming months, she said. Also planned is a trial to study exercise intolerance, which is reported by many with long COVID.

Information on how to join long COVID trials is available here.

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

Enrollment is opening for four clinical trials that will evaluate new treatments for long COVID, the National Institutes of Health announced at a media briefing today. Additional clinical trials to test at least seven more treatments are expected to launch in the coming months, officials said.

The trials are part of the NIH’s research effort known as the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative. In December 2020, Congress approved $1.15 billion for the NIH to research and test treatments for long COVID. The new clinical trials are in phase 2 and will test safety and effectiveness.

“The condition affects nearly all body systems and presents with more than 200 symptoms,” said Walter J. Koroshetz, MD, director of the NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and colead of the RECOVER Initiative. How many people have long COVID is uncertain, he told attendees at the briefing. “The answer kind of depends on how you define the problem and also what variant caused it. The incidence was higher in Delta.” Some estimates suggest that 5%-10% of those infected develop long COVID. “I don’t think we have solid numbers, as it’s a moving target,” Dr. Koroshetz said.

Patients with long COVID have grown increasingly frustrated at the lack of effective treatments. Some doctors have turned to off-label use of some drugs to treat them.

The four trials include the following:

• RECOVER-VITAL will focus on a treatment for viral persistence, which can occur if the virus lingers and causes the immune system to not work properly. One treatment will test a longer dose regimen of the antiviral Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir), which is currently used to treat mild to moderate COVID to halt progression to severe COVID.
• RECOVER-NEURO will target treatments for symptoms such as brain fog, memory problems, and attention challenges. Among the potential treatments are a program called BrainHQ, which provides Web-based training, and PASC-Cognitive Recovery (post-acute sequelae of COVID), a Web-based program developed by Mount Sinai Health System in New York. Also being tested is a direct current stimulation program to improve brain activity.
• RECOVER-SLEEP will evaluate treatments for sleep problems, which can include daytime sleepiness and other problems. According to Dr. Koroshetz, melatonin, light therapy, and an educational coaching system are among the treatments that will be studied.
• RECOVER-AUTONOMIC will evaluate treatments to address symptoms linked with problems of the autonomic nervous system. The first trial will target postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which can include irregular heartbeat, fatigue, and dizziness. A treatment for immune disease and a drug currently used to treat chronic heart failure will be tested.

Timelines

The first trial, on viral persistence, has launched, said Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, a principal investigator at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the clinical trials data coordinating center for the trials. “We are actively working to launch the second on cognitive dysfunction.” The sleep and autonomic trials will launch in the coming months, she said. Also planned is a trial to study exercise intolerance, which is reported by many with long COVID.

Information on how to join long COVID trials is available here.

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

Enrollment is opening for four clinical trials that will evaluate new treatments for long COVID, the National Institutes of Health announced at a media briefing today. Additional clinical trials to test at least seven more treatments are expected to launch in the coming months, officials said.

The trials are part of the NIH’s research effort known as the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative. In December 2020, Congress approved $1.15 billion for the NIH to research and test treatments for long COVID. The new clinical trials are in phase 2 and will test safety and effectiveness.

“The condition affects nearly all body systems and presents with more than 200 symptoms,” said Walter J. Koroshetz, MD, director of the NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and colead of the RECOVER Initiative. How many people have long COVID is uncertain, he told attendees at the briefing. “The answer kind of depends on how you define the problem and also what variant caused it. The incidence was higher in Delta.” Some estimates suggest that 5%-10% of those infected develop long COVID. “I don’t think we have solid numbers, as it’s a moving target,” Dr. Koroshetz said.

Patients with long COVID have grown increasingly frustrated at the lack of effective treatments. Some doctors have turned to off-label use of some drugs to treat them.

The four trials include the following:

• RECOVER-VITAL will focus on a treatment for viral persistence, which can occur if the virus lingers and causes the immune system to not work properly. One treatment will test a longer dose regimen of the antiviral Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir), which is currently used to treat mild to moderate COVID to halt progression to severe COVID.
• RECOVER-NEURO will target treatments for symptoms such as brain fog, memory problems, and attention challenges. Among the potential treatments are a program called BrainHQ, which provides Web-based training, and PASC-Cognitive Recovery (post-acute sequelae of COVID), a Web-based program developed by Mount Sinai Health System in New York. Also being tested is a direct current stimulation program to improve brain activity.
• RECOVER-SLEEP will evaluate treatments for sleep problems, which can include daytime sleepiness and other problems. According to Dr. Koroshetz, melatonin, light therapy, and an educational coaching system are among the treatments that will be studied.
• RECOVER-AUTONOMIC will evaluate treatments to address symptoms linked with problems of the autonomic nervous system. The first trial will target postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which can include irregular heartbeat, fatigue, and dizziness. A treatment for immune disease and a drug currently used to treat chronic heart failure will be tested.

Timelines

The first trial, on viral persistence, has launched, said Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, a principal investigator at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the clinical trials data coordinating center for the trials. “We are actively working to launch the second on cognitive dysfunction.” The sleep and autonomic trials will launch in the coming months, she said. Also planned is a trial to study exercise intolerance, which is reported by many with long COVID.

Information on how to join long COVID trials is available here.

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

A Washington state hospital will pay the government $240,000 to resolve a data privacy investigation after nearly two dozen security guards were caught snooping through medical records without a job-related purpose.

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital agreed to the voluntary settlement after an investigation into the actions of 23 emergency department security guards who allegedly used their login credentials to access the patient medical records of 419 patients.

The information accessed included names, dates of birth, medical record numbers, addresses, certain notes related to treatment, and insurance information, according to a release by the U.S .Department of Health & Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR). A breach notification report alerted OCR to the snooping.

As part of the agreement, OCR will monitor Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital for 2 years and the hospital must conduct a thorough risk analysis as well as develop a risk management plan to address and mitigate identified security risks and vulnerabilities. The settlement is not considered an admission of guilt by the hospital.
 

Is such snooping common?

The incident highlights the frequent practice of employees snooping through medical records and the steep consequences that can result for providers, said Paul Redding, vice president of partner engagement and cybersecurity at Compliancy Group, a company that offers guided HIPAA compliance software for healthcare providers and vendors.

“I think the problem is absolutely growing,” he said. “What’s crazy about this case is it’s actually a really small HIPAA violation. Less than 500 people were affected, and the hospital still must pay a quarter-of-a-million-dollar settlement. If you take the average HIPAA violation, which is in the thousands and thousands of [patients], this amount would be magnified many times over.”

In general, employees snoop through records out of curiosity or to find out information about people they know – or want to learn about, said J. David Sims, a cybersecurity expert and CEO of Security First IT, a company that provides cybersecurity solutions and IT support to health care businesses.

Mr. Sims says he has heard of cases where health professionals snooped through records to find information about the new love interests of ex-partners or to learn about people on dating websites whom they’re interested in dating.

“Most of the time, it’s people being nosy,” he said. “In a lot of cases, it’s curiosity about famous people. You see it a lot in areas where you have football players who come in with injuries or you have an actor or actress who come in for something.”

“Data breaches caused by current and former workforce members impermissibly accessing patient records are a recurring issue across the health care industry. Health care organizations must ensure that workforce members can only access the patient information needed to do their jobs,” OCR director Melanie Fontes Rainer said in a June statement. “HIPAA-covered entities must have robust policies and procedures in place to ensure patient health information is protected from identify theft and fraud.”

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital did not return a message seeking comment.

According to OCR’s latest report to Congress, complaints about HIPAA violations increased by 39% between 2017 and 2021. Breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals rose by 5% during the same time period, and breaches impacting 500 or more individuals increased by 58%.
 

Common reasons employees snoop

The OCR announcement does not specify why the 23 security guards were accessing the medical records, but the incident raises questions about why the security guards had access to protected health information (PHI) in the first place, Mr. Redding said.

“I have yet to have anyone explain to me why the security guards would have access to PHI at all, at any level,” he said. “Was it by design or was it by error?”

In 2019 for instance, dozens of employees at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago were fired for accessing the health records of former Empire actor Jussie Smollett. In another high-profile case, nearly a dozen emergency medical service employees were caught snooping through 911 records connected to the treatment and, later, death of Joan Rivers.

“Sadly, there is a lack of education around what compliance really means inside the medical industry as a whole,” Mr. Redding said. “There is a lack of employee training and a lack of emphasis on accountability for employees.”
 

Privacy breaches fuel lawsuits

Health professionals caught snooping through records are frequently terminated and employers can face a range of ramifications, including civil and criminal penalties.

A growing trend is class action lawsuits associated with privacy violations, Mr. Redding adds.

Because patients are unable to sue in civil court for HIPAA breaches, they frequently sue for “breach of an implied contract,” he explained. In such cases, patients allege that the privacy documents they signed with health care providers established an implied contract, and their records being exposed constituted a contract breach.

“Class action lawsuits are starting to become extremely common,” Mr. Redding said. “It’s happening in many cases, even sometimes before Health & Human Services issue a fine, that [providers] are being wrapped into a class action lawsuit.”

Mayo Clinic, for example, was recently slapped with a class action suit after a former employee inappropriately accessed the records of 1,600 patients. Mayo settled the suit in January 2023, the terms of which were not publicly disclosed.

Multiple patients also filed a class action suit against San Diego–based Scripps Health after its data were hit with a cyberattack and subsequent breach that impacted close to 2 million people. Scripps reached a $3.5 million settlement with the plaintiffs in 2023.

Some practices and employers may also face state penalties for data privacy breaches, depending on their jurisdiction. In July, Connecticut became the fifth state to enact a comprehensive data privacy law. The measure, which creates a robust framework for protecting health-related records and other data, includes civil penalties of up to $5,000 for violations. Other states, including California, Virginia, Utah, and Colorado, also have state data privacy laws on the books.
 

How can practices stop snooping?

A first step to preventing snooping is conducting a thorough risk assessment, said David Harlow, a health care attorney and chief compliance and privacy officer for Insulet Corporation, a medical device company. The analysis should address who has access to what data and whether they really need such access, he said.

“Then it’s putting in place the proper controls to ensure access is limited and use is limited to the appropriate individuals and circumstances,” Mr. Harlow said.

Regulators don’t expect a giant academic medical center and a small private physician practice to take an identical HIPAA compliance approach, he stressed. The ideal approach will vary by entity. Providers just need to address the standards in a way that makes sense for their operation, he said.

Training is also a critical component, adds Mr. Sims.

“Having training is key,” he said. “Oftentimes, an employee might think, ‘Well, if I can click on this data and it comes up, obviously, I can look at it.’ They need to understand what information they are and are not allowed to access.”

Keep in mind that settings or controls might change when larger transitions take place, such as moving to a new electronic health record system, Mr. Sims said. It’s essential to reevaluate controls when changes in the practice take place to ensure that everything is functioning correctly.

Mr. Sims also suggests that practices create a type of “If you see something, say something,” policy that encourages fellow physicians and employees to report anything that looks suspicious within electronic logs. If an employee, for instance, is suddenly looking at many more records than usual or at odd times of the day or night, this should raise red flags.

“It’s great to stop it early so that it doesn’t become a bigger issue for the practice to deal with, but also, from a legal standpoint, you want to have a defensible argument that you were doing all you could to stop this as quickly as possible,” he said. “It puts you in a better position to defend yourself.”

The snooping security guards case holds an important lesson for all health providers, Mr. Harlow said.

“This is a message to all of us, that you need to have done the assessment up front,” he said. You need to have the right controls in place up front. This is not a situation where somebody managed to hack into a system for some devious means. This is someone who was given keys. Why were they given the keys?”

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

A Washington state hospital will pay the government $240,000 to resolve a data privacy investigation after nearly two dozen security guards were caught snooping through medical records without a job-related purpose.

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital agreed to the voluntary settlement after an investigation into the actions of 23 emergency department security guards who allegedly used their login credentials to access the patient medical records of 419 patients.

The information accessed included names, dates of birth, medical record numbers, addresses, certain notes related to treatment, and insurance information, according to a release by the U.S .Department of Health & Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR). A breach notification report alerted OCR to the snooping.

As part of the agreement, OCR will monitor Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital for 2 years and the hospital must conduct a thorough risk analysis as well as develop a risk management plan to address and mitigate identified security risks and vulnerabilities. The settlement is not considered an admission of guilt by the hospital.
 

Is such snooping common?

The incident highlights the frequent practice of employees snooping through medical records and the steep consequences that can result for providers, said Paul Redding, vice president of partner engagement and cybersecurity at Compliancy Group, a company that offers guided HIPAA compliance software for healthcare providers and vendors.

“I think the problem is absolutely growing,” he said. “What’s crazy about this case is it’s actually a really small HIPAA violation. Less than 500 people were affected, and the hospital still must pay a quarter-of-a-million-dollar settlement. If you take the average HIPAA violation, which is in the thousands and thousands of [patients], this amount would be magnified many times over.”

In general, employees snoop through records out of curiosity or to find out information about people they know – or want to learn about, said J. David Sims, a cybersecurity expert and CEO of Security First IT, a company that provides cybersecurity solutions and IT support to health care businesses.

Mr. Sims says he has heard of cases where health professionals snooped through records to find information about the new love interests of ex-partners or to learn about people on dating websites whom they’re interested in dating.

“Most of the time, it’s people being nosy,” he said. “In a lot of cases, it’s curiosity about famous people. You see it a lot in areas where you have football players who come in with injuries or you have an actor or actress who come in for something.”

“Data breaches caused by current and former workforce members impermissibly accessing patient records are a recurring issue across the health care industry. Health care organizations must ensure that workforce members can only access the patient information needed to do their jobs,” OCR director Melanie Fontes Rainer said in a June statement. “HIPAA-covered entities must have robust policies and procedures in place to ensure patient health information is protected from identify theft and fraud.”

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital did not return a message seeking comment.

According to OCR’s latest report to Congress, complaints about HIPAA violations increased by 39% between 2017 and 2021. Breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals rose by 5% during the same time period, and breaches impacting 500 or more individuals increased by 58%.
 

Common reasons employees snoop

The OCR announcement does not specify why the 23 security guards were accessing the medical records, but the incident raises questions about why the security guards had access to protected health information (PHI) in the first place, Mr. Redding said.

“I have yet to have anyone explain to me why the security guards would have access to PHI at all, at any level,” he said. “Was it by design or was it by error?”

In 2019 for instance, dozens of employees at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago were fired for accessing the health records of former Empire actor Jussie Smollett. In another high-profile case, nearly a dozen emergency medical service employees were caught snooping through 911 records connected to the treatment and, later, death of Joan Rivers.

“Sadly, there is a lack of education around what compliance really means inside the medical industry as a whole,” Mr. Redding said. “There is a lack of employee training and a lack of emphasis on accountability for employees.”
 

Privacy breaches fuel lawsuits

Health professionals caught snooping through records are frequently terminated and employers can face a range of ramifications, including civil and criminal penalties.

A growing trend is class action lawsuits associated with privacy violations, Mr. Redding adds.

Because patients are unable to sue in civil court for HIPAA breaches, they frequently sue for “breach of an implied contract,” he explained. In such cases, patients allege that the privacy documents they signed with health care providers established an implied contract, and their records being exposed constituted a contract breach.

“Class action lawsuits are starting to become extremely common,” Mr. Redding said. “It’s happening in many cases, even sometimes before Health & Human Services issue a fine, that [providers] are being wrapped into a class action lawsuit.”

Mayo Clinic, for example, was recently slapped with a class action suit after a former employee inappropriately accessed the records of 1,600 patients. Mayo settled the suit in January 2023, the terms of which were not publicly disclosed.

Multiple patients also filed a class action suit against San Diego–based Scripps Health after its data were hit with a cyberattack and subsequent breach that impacted close to 2 million people. Scripps reached a $3.5 million settlement with the plaintiffs in 2023.

Some practices and employers may also face state penalties for data privacy breaches, depending on their jurisdiction. In July, Connecticut became the fifth state to enact a comprehensive data privacy law. The measure, which creates a robust framework for protecting health-related records and other data, includes civil penalties of up to $5,000 for violations. Other states, including California, Virginia, Utah, and Colorado, also have state data privacy laws on the books.
 

How can practices stop snooping?

A first step to preventing snooping is conducting a thorough risk assessment, said David Harlow, a health care attorney and chief compliance and privacy officer for Insulet Corporation, a medical device company. The analysis should address who has access to what data and whether they really need such access, he said.

“Then it’s putting in place the proper controls to ensure access is limited and use is limited to the appropriate individuals and circumstances,” Mr. Harlow said.

Regulators don’t expect a giant academic medical center and a small private physician practice to take an identical HIPAA compliance approach, he stressed. The ideal approach will vary by entity. Providers just need to address the standards in a way that makes sense for their operation, he said.

Training is also a critical component, adds Mr. Sims.

“Having training is key,” he said. “Oftentimes, an employee might think, ‘Well, if I can click on this data and it comes up, obviously, I can look at it.’ They need to understand what information they are and are not allowed to access.”

Keep in mind that settings or controls might change when larger transitions take place, such as moving to a new electronic health record system, Mr. Sims said. It’s essential to reevaluate controls when changes in the practice take place to ensure that everything is functioning correctly.

Mr. Sims also suggests that practices create a type of “If you see something, say something,” policy that encourages fellow physicians and employees to report anything that looks suspicious within electronic logs. If an employee, for instance, is suddenly looking at many more records than usual or at odd times of the day or night, this should raise red flags.

“It’s great to stop it early so that it doesn’t become a bigger issue for the practice to deal with, but also, from a legal standpoint, you want to have a defensible argument that you were doing all you could to stop this as quickly as possible,” he said. “It puts you in a better position to defend yourself.”

The snooping security guards case holds an important lesson for all health providers, Mr. Harlow said.

“This is a message to all of us, that you need to have done the assessment up front,” he said. You need to have the right controls in place up front. This is not a situation where somebody managed to hack into a system for some devious means. This is someone who was given keys. Why were they given the keys?”

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

A Washington state hospital will pay the government $240,000 to resolve a data privacy investigation after nearly two dozen security guards were caught snooping through medical records without a job-related purpose.

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital agreed to the voluntary settlement after an investigation into the actions of 23 emergency department security guards who allegedly used their login credentials to access the patient medical records of 419 patients.

The information accessed included names, dates of birth, medical record numbers, addresses, certain notes related to treatment, and insurance information, according to a release by the U.S .Department of Health & Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR). A breach notification report alerted OCR to the snooping.

As part of the agreement, OCR will monitor Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital for 2 years and the hospital must conduct a thorough risk analysis as well as develop a risk management plan to address and mitigate identified security risks and vulnerabilities. The settlement is not considered an admission of guilt by the hospital.
 

Is such snooping common?

The incident highlights the frequent practice of employees snooping through medical records and the steep consequences that can result for providers, said Paul Redding, vice president of partner engagement and cybersecurity at Compliancy Group, a company that offers guided HIPAA compliance software for healthcare providers and vendors.

“I think the problem is absolutely growing,” he said. “What’s crazy about this case is it’s actually a really small HIPAA violation. Less than 500 people were affected, and the hospital still must pay a quarter-of-a-million-dollar settlement. If you take the average HIPAA violation, which is in the thousands and thousands of [patients], this amount would be magnified many times over.”

In general, employees snoop through records out of curiosity or to find out information about people they know – or want to learn about, said J. David Sims, a cybersecurity expert and CEO of Security First IT, a company that provides cybersecurity solutions and IT support to health care businesses.

Mr. Sims says he has heard of cases where health professionals snooped through records to find information about the new love interests of ex-partners or to learn about people on dating websites whom they’re interested in dating.

“Most of the time, it’s people being nosy,” he said. “In a lot of cases, it’s curiosity about famous people. You see it a lot in areas where you have football players who come in with injuries or you have an actor or actress who come in for something.”

“Data breaches caused by current and former workforce members impermissibly accessing patient records are a recurring issue across the health care industry. Health care organizations must ensure that workforce members can only access the patient information needed to do their jobs,” OCR director Melanie Fontes Rainer said in a June statement. “HIPAA-covered entities must have robust policies and procedures in place to ensure patient health information is protected from identify theft and fraud.”

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital did not return a message seeking comment.

According to OCR’s latest report to Congress, complaints about HIPAA violations increased by 39% between 2017 and 2021. Breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals rose by 5% during the same time period, and breaches impacting 500 or more individuals increased by 58%.
 

Common reasons employees snoop

The OCR announcement does not specify why the 23 security guards were accessing the medical records, but the incident raises questions about why the security guards had access to protected health information (PHI) in the first place, Mr. Redding said.

“I have yet to have anyone explain to me why the security guards would have access to PHI at all, at any level,” he said. “Was it by design or was it by error?”

In 2019 for instance, dozens of employees at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago were fired for accessing the health records of former Empire actor Jussie Smollett. In another high-profile case, nearly a dozen emergency medical service employees were caught snooping through 911 records connected to the treatment and, later, death of Joan Rivers.

“Sadly, there is a lack of education around what compliance really means inside the medical industry as a whole,” Mr. Redding said. “There is a lack of employee training and a lack of emphasis on accountability for employees.”
 

Privacy breaches fuel lawsuits

Health professionals caught snooping through records are frequently terminated and employers can face a range of ramifications, including civil and criminal penalties.

A growing trend is class action lawsuits associated with privacy violations, Mr. Redding adds.

Because patients are unable to sue in civil court for HIPAA breaches, they frequently sue for “breach of an implied contract,” he explained. In such cases, patients allege that the privacy documents they signed with health care providers established an implied contract, and their records being exposed constituted a contract breach.

“Class action lawsuits are starting to become extremely common,” Mr. Redding said. “It’s happening in many cases, even sometimes before Health & Human Services issue a fine, that [providers] are being wrapped into a class action lawsuit.”

Mayo Clinic, for example, was recently slapped with a class action suit after a former employee inappropriately accessed the records of 1,600 patients. Mayo settled the suit in January 2023, the terms of which were not publicly disclosed.

Multiple patients also filed a class action suit against San Diego–based Scripps Health after its data were hit with a cyberattack and subsequent breach that impacted close to 2 million people. Scripps reached a $3.5 million settlement with the plaintiffs in 2023.

Some practices and employers may also face state penalties for data privacy breaches, depending on their jurisdiction. In July, Connecticut became the fifth state to enact a comprehensive data privacy law. The measure, which creates a robust framework for protecting health-related records and other data, includes civil penalties of up to $5,000 for violations. Other states, including California, Virginia, Utah, and Colorado, also have state data privacy laws on the books.
 

How can practices stop snooping?

A first step to preventing snooping is conducting a thorough risk assessment, said David Harlow, a health care attorney and chief compliance and privacy officer for Insulet Corporation, a medical device company. The analysis should address who has access to what data and whether they really need such access, he said.

“Then it’s putting in place the proper controls to ensure access is limited and use is limited to the appropriate individuals and circumstances,” Mr. Harlow said.

Regulators don’t expect a giant academic medical center and a small private physician practice to take an identical HIPAA compliance approach, he stressed. The ideal approach will vary by entity. Providers just need to address the standards in a way that makes sense for their operation, he said.

Training is also a critical component, adds Mr. Sims.

“Having training is key,” he said. “Oftentimes, an employee might think, ‘Well, if I can click on this data and it comes up, obviously, I can look at it.’ They need to understand what information they are and are not allowed to access.”

Keep in mind that settings or controls might change when larger transitions take place, such as moving to a new electronic health record system, Mr. Sims said. It’s essential to reevaluate controls when changes in the practice take place to ensure that everything is functioning correctly.

Mr. Sims also suggests that practices create a type of “If you see something, say something,” policy that encourages fellow physicians and employees to report anything that looks suspicious within electronic logs. If an employee, for instance, is suddenly looking at many more records than usual or at odd times of the day or night, this should raise red flags.

“It’s great to stop it early so that it doesn’t become a bigger issue for the practice to deal with, but also, from a legal standpoint, you want to have a defensible argument that you were doing all you could to stop this as quickly as possible,” he said. “It puts you in a better position to defend yourself.”

The snooping security guards case holds an important lesson for all health providers, Mr. Harlow said.

“This is a message to all of us, that you need to have done the assessment up front,” he said. You need to have the right controls in place up front. This is not a situation where somebody managed to hack into a system for some devious means. This is someone who was given keys. Why were they given the keys?”

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